Ha ha. What a prick. Completely unenforceable in any case. How do you prove that an assembly constitutes prayer or that the participants are Muslims? If Farage so wrecked our human rights law that this kind of thing became enforceable we would all be fucked, Muslim or otherwise.
If we can ban prayer outside abortion clinics then it can’t be beyond the wit of legislators.
Oh dear, we really are parotting braindead far right talking points today. You can ban protests in specific places, sure. So you could ban anyone from Trafalgar Square. The ban on "prayer" outside abortion clinics is a ban on any gathering designed to intimidate users of abortion clinics. It would apply to Muslims praying, Christians praying or atheists protesting without prayer. If the abortion clinic law attempted to ban Christian prayer specifically it would be laughed out of court and rightly so.
Funny that out of all the rich variety of moralising, oppressive. cultish religions apparently waiting to destroy Britishness that it’s the Christers that are hanging about in groups to bully women at potentially one of the worst moments of their lives.
And the unborn child is irrelevant I suppose? Most Muslim majority nations ban abortion of course except in the case of a risk to a woman's life, it is not just conservative Christian evangelicals and the Roman Catholic church anti
The balance of rights between mother and unborn child is absolutely fine to debate in a sober and rational way. Bringing unreachable deities whose views we claim to know into the debate is unhelpful.
This allows me to trot out one of my vasectomy stories. As my wife drove me away from the clinic, in loose fitting trousers, feeling distinctly sorry for myself, a large bunch of angry middle aged Christians started shouting abuse at her (it was a beautiful Spring day and the windows were down. I was momentarily puzzled, then furious. Clearly they were under the impression we'd been for an abortion. Despite my incapacity, I was quite clean to get out the car and kick off. First, to correct them, second and more importantly - how fucking dare some Christian talk to my wife like that - I may have been sore but I am quite a large bloke and have never felt it more urgent to dish out violent retribution to these ponces or at the very least tell them how little I cared for the views of their imaginary sky fairy. Thirdly - check what's going on in there before protesting so rudely you fucking idiots. And fourthly (this overlapped with secondly, on reflection) - if we had just had an abortion, it was a decision we would have come to soberly and sadly and for some good reason and it was no business of their imaginary friend.
Happily for all concerned, it took me a while to get past puzzle and shock, and my wife is less keen to seek trouble than I am, and by the time all this aligned in my head we were at least a mile away.
If Republic can send hecklers to scream at members of the royal family attending church or meeting crowds, anti abortion activists can send activists to pray and shout at those having an abortion.
Or you ban both as harassment. You have the same laws for right and left
Heckling public figures at their place of work, while they are working publicly, that they are paid to go to out of taxpayers money is not equivalent to heckling private citizens who are seeking private and confidential healthcare.
The King's place of work is Buckingham Palace, the Prince of Wales' Kensington Palace, not a cathedral or visiting a community group.
Abortions on the NHS are of course paid for from public money and indeed technically the royals are funded by crown estate and duchy profits not taxes so they are equivalent.
It is just pure political bias otherwise, so I say allow the anti abortion hecklers as long as Republic are allowed to heckle or ban both as harassment!
The King's place of work is any place he goes to in a professional capacity while working. Work and healthcare are completely different and not equivalent.
Your argument is like suggesting heckling Jimmy Carr while he is touring a venue is not doing so at his place of work as it is not where he is always based.
Preposterous.
The King's place of work is his office, vising a community group as head of state is not a political act in any way even of a constitutional monarch and is just harassment
His place of work is wherever he is working. If he is visiting a community group as head of state he is doing that in an official capacity, so that is where he is working at that time.
Just as if Jimmy Carr visits an arena as a comedian to perform, he is doing so in an official capacity.
Seeking cancer treatment as an individual who needs medical treatment is completely different to official engagements. If anyone is heckling that, they are sick.
No, his political work as head of state is done at Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle, his ceremonial role doing visiting engagements is separate and heckling there is just harassment of them and the community groups being visited. Hence royalists like me have now started making complaints to the Met and regional police forces about Republic when they heckle members of the royal family on public visits as it is clear breach of the Protection from Harassment Act and Public Order Acts
If you don't like Muslims vote Reform If you don't like MUSLIMS vote Reform If you don't like Muslims, don't like Muslims, if you don't like Muslims vote Reform
This is the song Farage is singing.
Politically its seems very stupid, those that don't already are voting Reform. But the flip side those Reform curious by factor of think Labour and Tory are crap but not big Tommy Ten Names fans, not going to help.
In the early days Farage made his name on the principle of rolling back the State. It was an argument he often used in his attacks on the EU -centralisation, control and state interference.
Nowadays most of his policies seem to involve the State getting even more involved in the private and public lives of individuals. I am not in any way religious. I am equally scornful of all religions. But the idea of banning people from simple public display of their faith, where it doesn't actually cause harm to others, is a huge leap too far for the State.
Wholeheartedly agreed.
I am as atheist as it comes, but I respect others rights to believe whatever they please, I just don't want it to be made compulsory for anyone else. So long as it is not causing harm to others, people should be able to practice however they please, it is no business of the state.
If anyone from Republic were heckling the King at healthcare facilities he is going to in order to get medical treatment, eg heckling him while seeking cancer treatment, then that would be equivalent to heckling women seeking medical treatment.
That does not happen though, as far as I know. If it did, it would be repugnant.
A woman having an abortion is aborting her unborn child, not seeking medical treatment for herself so it is not exactly equivalent even then
At some poiint perhaps you should realise you have been given several yards of rope now and have more than enough to hang yourself many times over. You are really not doing your image or your arguments any good here.
You and Bart are fanatical libertarians, why on earth should I care what your image of me and my argument is on this issue?
I wasn't actually thinking about Bart and myself. More the vast majority of other people reading this who would, I suspect, find your expressed views rather extreme.
I don’t much like seeing mass Islamic prayer in Trafalgar Square. Would feel the same way about some mass Jewish ritual, a large Catholic Mass, or some irritating evangelical Christian sect.
Wouldn’t mind a big morris-dancing thing.
If we are going to start banning things I would start with fucking Morris Dancing.
Try everything in life once, apart from incest and folk dancing!
💥 UK 10-year gilt yield just struck its highest level since July 2008 at 4.929%
Just as well we are running a balanced budget and did not increase our deficit in the last budget, eh? In a world as uncertain as this one with Trump in the White House that would have been reckless indeed.
Ha ha. What a prick. Completely unenforceable in any case. How do you prove that an assembly constitutes prayer or that the participants are Muslims? If Farage so wrecked our human rights law that this kind of thing became enforceable we would all be fucked, Muslim or otherwise.
If we can ban prayer outside abortion clinics then it can’t be beyond the wit of legislators.
Oh dear, we really are parotting braindead far right talking points today. You can ban protests in specific places, sure. So you could ban anyone from Trafalgar Square. The ban on "prayer" outside abortion clinics is a ban on any gathering designed to intimidate users of abortion clinics. It would apply to Muslims praying, Christians praying or atheists protesting without prayer. If the abortion clinic law attempted to ban Christian prayer specifically it would be laughed out of court and rightly so.
Funny that out of all the rich variety of moralising, oppressive. cultish religions apparently waiting to destroy Britishness that it’s the Christers that are hanging about in groups to bully women at potentially one of the worst moments of their lives.
And the unborn child is irrelevant I suppose? Most Muslim majority nations ban abortion of course except in the case of a risk to a woman's life, it is not just conservative Christian evangelicals and the Roman Catholic church anti
Wikipedia says...
In the 47 countries of the world with Muslim-majority populations, access to abortion varies greatly. In many, abortion is allowed when the mother's life is at risk.[6] In 18 countries, including Iraq, Egypt, and Indonesia, this is the only circumstance where abortion is permitted. In another ten countries, it is allowed on request. Mauritania, however, prohibits abortion under any circumstance.[7] In others,[which?] abortion is permitted under certain circumstances besides preserving the mother's life, such as safeguarding her mental health, cases of fetal impairment, incest or rape, and social or economic reasons. in b So, you're wrong. Most Muslim majority nations have more liberal abortion laws than that.
So I am right, only in less than a quarter of Muslim nations is abortion allowed on request up to gestational limit as in most western nations and in most Muslim nations abortion is only allowed in the case of risk to a woman's life or health or fetal impairment (Saudi also allows it in the case of rape) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law
That’s not what you said previously. You said, “Most Muslim majority nations ban abortion of course except in the case of a risk to a woman's life”, whereas that’s only true for 18/47 countries (plus Mauritania’s complete ban takes us to 19/47 countries).
Abortion is not allowed on request in many western nations. It isn’t in the UK or Germany or large parts of the US, for example.
Wrong, it is in the UK and Germany up to gestational limit and still in most US states
Abortion is still regulated by the 1967 Abortion Act in the UK, which does not allow abortion on request. See Section 1 at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/87/section/1 (My dad helped write that, so I am familiar with what it says!)
No, abortion up to 24 weeks in the UK and up to 12 weeks in Germany certainly is abortion legal on request in both nations and classified by Wikipedia as such
Ha ha. What a prick. Completely unenforceable in any case. How do you prove that an assembly constitutes prayer or that the participants are Muslims? If Farage so wrecked our human rights law that this kind of thing became enforceable we would all be fucked, Muslim or otherwise.
If we can ban prayer outside abortion clinics then it can’t be beyond the wit of legislators.
Oh dear, we really are parotting braindead far right talking points today. You can ban protests in specific places, sure. So you could ban anyone from Trafalgar Square. The ban on "prayer" outside abortion clinics is a ban on any gathering designed to intimidate users of abortion clinics. It would apply to Muslims praying, Christians praying or atheists protesting without prayer. If the abortion clinic law attempted to ban Christian prayer specifically it would be laughed out of court and rightly so.
Funny that out of all the rich variety of moralising, oppressive. cultish religions apparently waiting to destroy Britishness that it’s the Christers that are hanging about in groups to bully women at potentially one of the worst moments of their lives.
And the unborn child is irrelevant I suppose? Most Muslim majority nations ban abortion of course except in the case of a risk to a woman's life, it is not just conservative Christian evangelicals and the Roman Catholic church anti
The balance of rights between mother and unborn child is absolutely fine to debate in a sober and rational way. Bringing unreachable deities whose views we claim to know into the debate is unhelpful.
This allows me to trot out one of my vasectomy stories. As my wife drove me away from the clinic, in loose fitting trousers, feeling distinctly sorry for myself, a large bunch of angry middle aged Christians started shouting abuse at her (it was a beautiful Spring day and the windows were down. I was momentarily puzzled, then furious. Clearly they were under the impression we'd been for an abortion. Despite my incapacity, I was quite clean to get out the car and kick off. First, to correct them, second and more importantly - how fucking dare some Christian talk to my wife like that - I may have been sore but I am quite a large bloke and have never felt it more urgent to dish out violent retribution to these ponces or at the very least tell them how little I cared for the views of their imaginary sky fairy. Thirdly - check what's going on in there before protesting so rudely you fucking idiots. And fourthly (this overlapped with secondly, on reflection) - if we had just had an abortion, it was a decision we would have come to soberly and sadly and for some good reason and it was no business of their imaginary friend.
Happily for all concerned, it took me a while to get past puzzle and shock, and my wife is less keen to seek trouble than I am, and by the time all this aligned in my head we were at least a mile away.
If Republic can send hecklers to scream at members of the royal family attending church or meeting crowds, anti abortion activists can send activists to pray and shout at those having an abortion.
Or you ban both as harassment. You have the same laws for right and left
It’s not right and left. There’s no equivalence. No one WANTS to be at an abortion clinic. Deciding to have an abortion is (for obvious reasons I’ve no personal experience of it) usually a traumatic, once in a lifetime, decision to make for a variety of reasons. Shouting at someone in those circumstances adds trauma on trauma.
That’s not equivalent to shouting at a member of the Royal Family. It’s not even close.
A very disappointing post even by this site’s standards.
Silently praying is also apparently not allowed.
If you find yourself walking past an abortion clinic and say a little prayer to yourself, that is not illegal. If you stage a protest designed to intimidate people using the clinic, in which people stand there ostentatiously but silently praying, that is illegal.
If anyone from Republic were heckling the King at healthcare facilities he is going to in order to get medical treatment, eg heckling him while seeking cancer treatment, then that would be equivalent to heckling women seeking medical treatment.
That does not happen though, as far as I know. If it did, it would be repugnant.
A woman having an abortion is aborting her unborn child, not seeking medical treatment for herself so it is not exactly equivalent even then
At some poiint perhaps you should realise you have been given several yards of rope now and have more than enough to hang yourself many times over. You are really not doing your image or your arguments any good here.
You and Bart are fanatical libertarians, why on earth should I care what your image of me and my argument is on this issue?
I wasn't actually thinking about Bart and myself. More the vast majority of other people reading this who would, I suspect, find your expressed views rather extreme.
Certainly not if they were Roman Catholic, Orthodox or conservative evangelical or even Muslim.
In any case I am not necessarily saying end the ban on protests outside abortion clinics, more if you ban that then you also must ban heckling of the royal family on community visits
Ha ha. What a prick. Completely unenforceable in any case. How do you prove that an assembly constitutes prayer or that the participants are Muslims? If Farage so wrecked our human rights law that this kind of thing became enforceable we would all be fucked, Muslim or otherwise.
If we can ban prayer outside abortion clinics then it can’t be beyond the wit of legislators.
Oh dear, we really are parotting braindead far right talking points today. You can ban protests in specific places, sure. So you could ban anyone from Trafalgar Square. The ban on "prayer" outside abortion clinics is a ban on any gathering designed to intimidate users of abortion clinics. It would apply to Muslims praying, Christians praying or atheists protesting without prayer. If the abortion clinic law attempted to ban Christian prayer specifically it would be laughed out of court and rightly so.
Funny that out of all the rich variety of moralising, oppressive. cultish religions apparently waiting to destroy Britishness that it’s the Christers that are hanging about in groups to bully women at potentially one of the worst moments of their lives.
And the unborn child is irrelevant I suppose? Most Muslim majority nations ban abortion of course except in the case of a risk to a woman's life, it is not just conservative Christian evangelicals and the Roman Catholic church anti
Yeah, but so far it’s only the Christians demanding that they be allowed to pray in womens’ faces.
The law doesn't even mention religion.
That is how it works in a liberal democracy. We don't outlaw religions; we outlaw doing stuff to harm others, and if religion is claimed as justification for doing that stuff, then we make it clear that is no justification.
Yet again, this was the guidance published during the consultation over this particular law:
It is unacceptable for anyone to be harassed or distressed simply for exercising their legal right to access abortion services. The Government has always expected the police and local authorities to use their powers to deal with those who break the law.
The rights to gather, to express views and to manifest religious beliefs are a cornerstone of democracy in Britain and people should be free to gather and express their views, however uncomfortable they are to others, providing they do so within the law.
To be clear, this legislation only affects certain activities within 150 metres of a clinic or hospital. Not all protests are banned and neither does this amount to criminalising those who hold pro-life views who are in a Safe Access Zone. It does not affect people’s rights to gather or to express their views about abortion or to manifest their religious beliefs about abortion anywhere else.
It is vitally important that law enforcement agencies recognise the rights of both of those accessing or providing abortion services and protestors and, in enforcement, seek to balance their respective rights...
Seeking to specifically ban a particular religion from public prayer isn't even vaguely comparable to what section 9 of the Public Order Act does.
So, using the precedent, the Reform (fuck)wits declare that people feel intimidated by certain kinds of prayer in public.
I think when the law above was passed, some people mentioned that banning things, on the basis that people felt offended by them, had a risk.
That some people are genuinely offended by things that shouldn't be banned.
The law was nothing to do with being "offended", genuinely or not. It was drafted to prevent women accessing a service from being harassed or intimidated, within 150m of the service premises, by those trying to persuade them not to access that service.
The framing you describe is not an honest description of what the law says, or the very narrow set of locations where it applies.
It is no kind of precedent for what Farage and the rest of the motley crew are proposing.
It’s not about honesty - I mean, Farage, honesty? really?
If anyone from Republic were heckling the King at healthcare facilities he is going to in order to get medical treatment, eg heckling him while seeking cancer treatment, then that would be equivalent to heckling women seeking medical treatment.
That does not happen though, as far as I know. If it did, it would be repugnant.
A woman having an abortion is aborting her unborn child, not seeking medical treatment for herself so it is not exactly equivalent even then
At some poiint perhaps you should realise you have been given several yards of rope now and have more than enough to hang yourself many times over. You are really not doing your image or your arguments any good here.
You and Bart are fanatical libertarians, why on earth should I care what your image of me and my argument is on this issue?
I wasn't actually thinking about Bart and myself. More the vast majority of other people reading this who would, I suspect, find your expressed views rather extreme.
Certainly not if they were Catholic or conservative evangelical or even Muslim.
In any case I am not necessarily saying end the ban on protests outside abortion clinics, more if you ban that then you also must ban heckling of the royal family on community visits
Except official engagements and personal healthcare are not remotely comparable.
These images show the moment officers focused on the suspect in Salford.
A man wearing a vest can be seen on the ground in Mandley Park, and with his hands on his head.
UPDATE: The MEN understands the man at the centre of the incident was believed to be wearing a weighted gym vest.
There is not currently believed to be any wider risk to the community, it is understood.
Not quite as bad as the gardener who was arrested for carrying his tools around. That was also in the Manchester area IIRC.
If you are on high alert and see a guy with a "weighted gym vest" you would be being negligent if you did not consider him a person of potential interest. Really not seeing what the police did wrong here.
Ha ha. What a prick. Completely unenforceable in any case. How do you prove that an assembly constitutes prayer or that the participants are Muslims? If Farage so wrecked our human rights law that this kind of thing became enforceable we would all be fucked, Muslim or otherwise.
If we can ban prayer outside abortion clinics then it can’t be beyond the wit of legislators.
Oh dear, we really are parotting braindead far right talking points today. You can ban protests in specific places, sure. So you could ban anyone from Trafalgar Square. The ban on "prayer" outside abortion clinics is a ban on any gathering designed to intimidate users of abortion clinics. It would apply to Muslims praying, Christians praying or atheists protesting without prayer. If the abortion clinic law attempted to ban Christian prayer specifically it would be laughed out of court and rightly so.
Funny that out of all the rich variety of moralising, oppressive. cultish religions apparently waiting to destroy Britishness that it’s the Christers that are hanging about in groups to bully women at potentially one of the worst moments of their lives.
And the unborn child is irrelevant I suppose? Most Muslim majority nations ban abortion of course except in the case of a risk to a woman's life, it is not just conservative Christian evangelicals and the Roman Catholic church anti
The balance of rights between mother and unborn child is absolutely fine to debate in a sober and rational way. Bringing unreachable deities whose views we claim to know into the debate is unhelpful.
This allows me to trot out one of my vasectomy stories. As my wife drove me away from the clinic, in loose fitting trousers, feeling distinctly sorry for myself, a large bunch of angry middle aged Christians started shouting abuse at her (it was a beautiful Spring day and the windows were down. I was momentarily puzzled, then furious. Clearly they were under the impression we'd been for an abortion. Despite my incapacity, I was quite clean to get out the car and kick off. First, to correct them, second and more importantly - how fucking dare some Christian talk to my wife like that - I may have been sore but I am quite a large bloke and have never felt it more urgent to dish out violent retribution to these ponces or at the very least tell them how little I cared for the views of their imaginary sky fairy. Thirdly - check what's going on in there before protesting so rudely you fucking idiots. And fourthly (this overlapped with secondly, on reflection) - if we had just had an abortion, it was a decision we would have come to soberly and sadly and for some good reason and it was no business of their imaginary friend.
Happily for all concerned, it took me a while to get past puzzle and shock, and my wife is less keen to seek trouble than I am, and by the time all this aligned in my head we were at least a mile away.
The 'unreachable deities' point slightly misses the heart of the matter. Whether ethics is subjective or objective is not a knowable item. There are insurmountable problems with both positions. But objectivists include lots of people who don't invoke the gods. Lots of atheists think that torturing children for fun is not only wrong, but still wrong even if everyone thought it was right. Kant invokes no gods in drawing that sort of objective conclusion.
Whether or not there is a god - another unknowable item - for lots of people the gods is where they ground the idea of objectivity. I am among them.
Hume, who believed none of this, is Trump's representative. 'I will feel it in my bones'. As Hume says, though he is wrong "Tis not unreasonable for me to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.”
Regrettably - because both you and the topic are interesting on this - I'm going to have to leave this here because real life calls. May pick up later if it's still relevant. Thanks for engaging and sorry if I got a bit splenetic.
Thank you. The world has lots to be splenetic about......I am far worse.
If you don't like Muslims vote Reform If you don't like MUSLIMS vote Reform If you don't like Muslims, don't like Muslims, if you don't like Muslims vote Reform
This is the song Farage is singing.
Politically its seems very stupid, those that don't already are voting Reform. But the flip side those Reform curious by factor of think Labour and Tory are crap but not big Tommy Ten Names fans, not going to help.
Maybe but he'll have thought about it. His essential challenge is to get the racist vote plus the lion's share of pissed off roll-the-dicers. That would likely see him into Downing St. With this he's telegraphing to the first group that he's their man (so don't bother looking at Rupert Lowe or anyone else) in a way that (he hopes) doesn't trigger "oh shit Farage is a racist" alarm bells amongst too many of the second group.
Not that I am a Farage fan, but seems like the better way to win both is continued focus on immigration, especially illegal immigration via small boats, and stuff like 'uman rights met scumbag didn't get deported. There are a sizable proportion of people who think immigration is too high and that the system has abused that aren't on Tommy Ten Name rallies.
It depends how big the 'proper' racist vote is. I think (and Farage clearly does too) that it's enough to make a real difference if he can secure it. If he loses those people to (eg) Restore his path to power becomes far more challenging.
The risk for Farage is that he may well galvinise the anti-racist vote to turn out. That was probably a big factor in the Green win in Gorton and Denton.
This debate which Nick is having is not about freedom of religion. It is about how religion is expressed in a shared public space, and whether those expressions fit within the norms of a British culture.
Of course it is about that. Denying it is to argue with reality.
Hard agree. For Nick Timothy, it's not a debate about religion. He is not interested in appropriate expression of their religion in public spaces for Muslims, nor is he interested in that a vast majority are good citizens who integrate and live their lives peaceably.
He's in Daily Mail or Robert Jenrick mode, looking for a "THEM" with which he can make us all frightened so we will go running to Nick's "US" to keep us safe.
50-150 years ago (ish) he would have been talking about Kikes, Mucks and Eyeties - expressed in those terms, in gradually less hysterical terms over the period. Although equally he could have avoided falling into that type of politics.
Whilst the Conservatives maintain that rhetoric at the top of their party, tolerated or supported by the Leader, they are in shackles of their own making
Ha ha. What a prick. Completely unenforceable in any case. How do you prove that an assembly constitutes prayer or that the participants are Muslims? If Farage so wrecked our human rights law that this kind of thing became enforceable we would all be fucked, Muslim or otherwise.
If we can ban prayer outside abortion clinics then it can’t be beyond the wit of legislators.
Oh dear, we really are parotting braindead far right talking points today. You can ban protests in specific places, sure. So you could ban anyone from Trafalgar Square. The ban on "prayer" outside abortion clinics is a ban on any gathering designed to intimidate users of abortion clinics. It would apply to Muslims praying, Christians praying or atheists protesting without prayer. If the abortion clinic law attempted to ban Christian prayer specifically it would be laughed out of court and rightly so.
Funny that out of all the rich variety of moralising, oppressive. cultish religions apparently waiting to destroy Britishness that it’s the Christers that are hanging about in groups to bully women at potentially one of the worst moments of their lives.
And the unborn child is irrelevant I suppose? Most Muslim majority nations ban abortion of course except in the case of a risk to a woman's life, it is not just conservative Christian evangelicals and the Roman Catholic church anti
The balance of rights between mother and unborn child is absolutely fine to debate in a sober and rational way. Bringing unreachable deities whose views we claim to know into the debate is unhelpful.
This allows me to trot out one of my vasectomy stories. As my wife drove me away from the clinic, in loose fitting trousers, feeling distinctly sorry for myself, a large bunch of angry middle aged Christians started shouting abuse at her (it was a beautiful Spring day and the windows were down. I was momentarily puzzled, then furious. Clearly they were under the impression we'd been for an abortion. Despite my incapacity, I was quite clean to get out the car and kick off. First, to correct them, second and more importantly - how fucking dare some Christian talk to my wife like that - I may have been sore but I am quite a large bloke and have never felt it more urgent to dish out violent retribution to these ponces or at the very least tell them how little I cared for the views of their imaginary sky fairy. Thirdly - check what's going on in there before protesting so rudely you fucking idiots. And fourthly (this overlapped with secondly, on reflection) - if we had just had an abortion, it was a decision we would have come to soberly and sadly and for some good reason and it was no business of their imaginary friend.
Happily for all concerned, it took me a while to get past puzzle and shock, and my wife is less keen to seek trouble than I am, and by the time all this aligned in my head we were at least a mile away.
If Republic can send hecklers to scream at members of the royal family attending church or meeting crowds, anti abortion activists can send activists to pray and shout at those having an abortion.
Or you ban both as harassment. You have the same laws for right and left
It’s not right and left. There’s no equivalence. No one WANTS to be at an abortion clinic. Deciding to have an abortion is (for obvious reasons I’ve no personal experience of it) usually a traumatic, once in a lifetime, decision to make for a variety of reasons. Shouting at someone in those circumstances adds trauma on trauma.
That’s not equivalent to shouting at a member of the Royal Family. It’s not even close.
A very disappointing post even by this site’s standards.
Silently praying is also apparently not allowed.
If you find yourself walking past an abortion clinic and say a little prayer to yourself, that is not illegal. If you stage a protest designed to intimidate people using the clinic, in which people stand there ostentatiously but silently praying, that is illegal.
These images show the moment officers focused on the suspect in Salford.
A man wearing a vest can be seen on the ground in Mandley Park, and with his hands on his head.
UPDATE: The MEN understands the man at the centre of the incident was believed to be wearing a weighted gym vest.
There is not currently believed to be any wider risk to the community, it is understood.
Not quite as bad as the gardener who was arrested for carrying his tools around. That was also in the Manchester area IIRC.
If you are on high alert and see a guy with a "weighted gym vest" you would be being negligent if you did not consider him a person of potential interest. Really not seeing what the police did wrong here.
I'd suggest plod in the photo could do with some weighted gym vest work... Are there not fitness standards anymore?
As former Ambassador Bolton, a wise head on this issue, said it was always war gamed that Iran could try to shut the Strait but in those scenarios America would always stop Iran from getting its own oil out of the Strait too.
What was never considered was a scenario where Iran could stop Gulf states getting their products out, while still being allowed to let its own out too.
Utter insanity.
The whole thing is an example of the dangers of half arsing something
I blame the US electorate.
They knew that Trump was a capricious, narcisstic, vengeful, vainglorious potential tyrant from his first term, but re-elected him anyway. Now the world has to live with the consequences.
Now we know how the Romans must have felt under Caligula.
The Democrats are at fault,here. As is Biden.
For contriving to put forward Kamala Harris. Inept as a candidate during the primaries that saw Biden come to get the nomination. What did they expect
That's a bit like blaming the sexual assault victim because she was wearing a short skirt.
It is not Biden/Harris's "fault" Trump was elected. He was elected fairly and squarely by a majority of voters and won the electoral college.
Neither is it Biden/Harris's "fault" that Trump has surrounded himself with yes-men (and Tulsi) and is suffering a terminal cognitive decline.
One could argue that installing an imbecile and wannabe dictator as the official Republican Presidential candidate was the "fault" of the Republican Party.
For such a catastrophe as Trump's second term there is more than enough blame to go around.
There is a special place in Hell for Starmer for inviting Trump and Melania on a second state visit.
Of all the things… Jaw Jaw is better than War War.
Given some of the ghastly people that Liz II was told to shake hands with, that’s the tinyest thing.
Even from the point of a Labour partisan, the fracturing of the Labour coalition wasn’t down to inviting Trump. Not even 1%. It was the actions of Starmer and company - doing things they had control over and did not need to do. And then undo before they did them.
Ha ha. What a prick. Completely unenforceable in any case. How do you prove that an assembly constitutes prayer or that the participants are Muslims? If Farage so wrecked our human rights law that this kind of thing became enforceable we would all be fucked, Muslim or otherwise.
If we can ban prayer outside abortion clinics then it can’t be beyond the wit of legislators.
Oh dear, we really are parotting braindead far right talking points today. You can ban protests in specific places, sure. So you could ban anyone from Trafalgar Square. The ban on "prayer" outside abortion clinics is a ban on any gathering designed to intimidate users of abortion clinics. It would apply to Muslims praying, Christians praying or atheists protesting without prayer. If the abortion clinic law attempted to ban Christian prayer specifically it would be laughed out of court and rightly so.
Funny that out of all the rich variety of moralising, oppressive. cultish religions apparently waiting to destroy Britishness that it’s the Christers that are hanging about in groups to bully women at potentially one of the worst moments of their lives.
And the unborn child is irrelevant I suppose? Most Muslim majority nations ban abortion of course except in the case of a risk to a woman's life, it is not just conservative Christian evangelicals and the Roman Catholic church anti
The balance of rights between mother and unborn child is absolutely fine to debate in a sober and rational way. Bringing unreachable deities whose views we claim to know into the debate is unhelpful.
This allows me to trot out one of my vasectomy stories. As my wife drove me away from the clinic, in loose fitting trousers, feeling distinctly sorry for myself, a large bunch of angry middle aged Christians started shouting abuse at her (it was a beautiful Spring day and the windows were down. I was momentarily puzzled, then furious. Clearly they were under the impression we'd been for an abortion. Despite my incapacity, I was quite clean to get out the car and kick off. First, to correct them, second and more importantly - how fucking dare some Christian talk to my wife like that - I may have been sore but I am quite a large bloke and have never felt it more urgent to dish out violent retribution to these ponces or at the very least tell them how little I cared for the views of their imaginary sky fairy. Thirdly - check what's going on in there before protesting so rudely you fucking idiots. And fourthly (this overlapped with secondly, on reflection) - if we had just had an abortion, it was a decision we would have come to soberly and sadly and for some good reason and it was no business of their imaginary friend.
Happily for all concerned, it took me a while to get past puzzle and shock, and my wife is less keen to seek trouble than I am, and by the time all this aligned in my head we were at least a mile away.
If Republic can send hecklers to scream at members of the royal family attending church or meeting crowds, anti abortion activists can send activists to pray and shout at those having an abortion.
Or you ban both as harassment. You have the same laws for right and left
It’s not right and left. There’s no equivalence. No one WANTS to be at an abortion clinic. Deciding to have an abortion is (for obvious reasons I’ve no personal experience of it) usually a traumatic, once in a lifetime, decision to make for a variety of reasons. Shouting at someone in those circumstances adds trauma on trauma.
That’s not equivalent to shouting at a member of the Royal Family. It’s not even close.
A very disappointing post even by this site’s standards.
Silently praying is also apparently not allowed.
If you find yourself walking past an abortion clinic and say a little prayer to yourself, that is not illegal. If you stage a protest designed to intimidate people using the clinic, in which people stand there ostentatiously but silently praying, that is illegal.
Britain’s border security commander Martin Hewitt is leaving his job by the end of March, according to the Sun. He is the man who is supposed to stop small boats crossings.
I don’t much like seeing mass Islamic prayer in Trafalgar Square. Would feel the same way about some mass Jewish ritual, a large Catholic Mass, or some irritating evangelical Christian sect.
Wouldn’t mind a big morris-dancing thing.
If we are going to start banning things I would start with fucking Morris Dancing.
Try everything in life once, apart from incest and folk dancing!
The grammar is a bit strained but I think Only Living Boy is trying to ban doing both at the same time. Actually I think it's already illegal, except in private with the bells removed.
These images show the moment officers focused on the suspect in Salford.
A man wearing a vest can be seen on the ground in Mandley Park, and with his hands on his head.
UPDATE: The MEN understands the man at the centre of the incident was believed to be wearing a weighted gym vest.
There is not currently believed to be any wider risk to the community, it is understood.
Not quite as bad as the gardener who was arrested for carrying his tools around. That was also in the Manchester area IIRC.
If you are on high alert and see a guy with a "weighted gym vest" you would be being negligent if you did not consider him a person of potential interest. Really not seeing what the police did wrong here.
Ha ha. What a prick. Completely unenforceable in any case. How do you prove that an assembly constitutes prayer or that the participants are Muslims? If Farage so wrecked our human rights law that this kind of thing became enforceable we would all be fucked, Muslim or otherwise.
If we can ban prayer outside abortion clinics then it can’t be beyond the wit of legislators.
Oh dear, we really are parotting braindead far right talking points today. You can ban protests in specific places, sure. So you could ban anyone from Trafalgar Square. The ban on "prayer" outside abortion clinics is a ban on any gathering designed to intimidate users of abortion clinics. It would apply to Muslims praying, Christians praying or atheists protesting without prayer. If the abortion clinic law attempted to ban Christian prayer specifically it would be laughed out of court and rightly so.
Funny that out of all the rich variety of moralising, oppressive. cultish religions apparently waiting to destroy Britishness that it’s the Christers that are hanging about in groups to bully women at potentially one of the worst moments of their lives.
And the unborn child is irrelevant I suppose? Most Muslim majority nations ban abortion of course except in the case of a risk to a woman's life, it is not just conservative Christian evangelicals and the Roman Catholic church anti
The balance of rights between mother and unborn child is absolutely fine to debate in a sober and rational way. Bringing unreachable deities whose views we claim to know into the debate is unhelpful.
This allows me to trot out one of my vasectomy stories. As my wife drove me away from the clinic, in loose fitting trousers, feeling distinctly sorry for myself, a large bunch of angry middle aged Christians started shouting abuse at her (it was a beautiful Spring day and the windows were down. I was momentarily puzzled, then furious. Clearly they were under the impression we'd been for an abortion. Despite my incapacity, I was quite clean to get out the car and kick off. First, to correct them, second and more importantly - how fucking dare some Christian talk to my wife like that - I may have been sore but I am quite a large bloke and have never felt it more urgent to dish out violent retribution to these ponces or at the very least tell them how little I cared for the views of their imaginary sky fairy. Thirdly - check what's going on in there before protesting so rudely you fucking idiots. And fourthly (this overlapped with secondly, on reflection) - if we had just had an abortion, it was a decision we would have come to soberly and sadly and for some good reason and it was no business of their imaginary friend.
Happily for all concerned, it took me a while to get past puzzle and shock, and my wife is less keen to seek trouble than I am, and by the time all this aligned in my head we were at least a mile away.
If Republic can send hecklers to scream at members of the royal family attending church or meeting crowds, anti abortion activists can send activists to pray and shout at those having an abortion.
Or you ban both as harassment. You have the same laws for right and left
It’s not right and left. There’s no equivalence. No one WANTS to be at an abortion clinic. Deciding to have an abortion is (for obvious reasons I’ve no personal experience of it) usually a traumatic, once in a lifetime, decision to make for a variety of reasons. Shouting at someone in those circumstances adds trauma on trauma.
That’s not equivalent to shouting at a member of the Royal Family. It’s not even close.
A very disappointing post even by this site’s standards.
Silently praying is also apparently not allowed.
If you find yourself walking past an abortion clinic and say a little prayer to yourself, that is not illegal. If you stage a protest designed to intimidate people using the clinic, in which people stand there ostentatiously but silently praying, that is illegal.
The court case against Gerry Adams has been discontinued 🤔
‘ The claim will be discontinued with "no order as to costs" after "proceedings developed overnight," according to Anne Studd KC, who was representing the victims.’
Ha ha. What a prick. Completely unenforceable in any case. How do you prove that an assembly constitutes prayer or that the participants are Muslims? If Farage so wrecked our human rights law that this kind of thing became enforceable we would all be fucked, Muslim or otherwise.
If we can ban prayer outside abortion clinics then it can’t be beyond the wit of legislators.
Oh dear, we really are parotting braindead far right talking points today. You can ban protests in specific places, sure. So you could ban anyone from Trafalgar Square. The ban on "prayer" outside abortion clinics is a ban on any gathering designed to intimidate users of abortion clinics. It would apply to Muslims praying, Christians praying or atheists protesting without prayer. If the abortion clinic law attempted to ban Christian prayer specifically it would be laughed out of court and rightly so.
Funny that out of all the rich variety of moralising, oppressive. cultish religions apparently waiting to destroy Britishness that it’s the Christers that are hanging about in groups to bully women at potentially one of the worst moments of their lives.
And the unborn child is irrelevant I suppose? Most Muslim majority nations ban abortion of course except in the case of a risk to a woman's life, it is not just conservative Christian evangelicals and the Roman Catholic church anti
The balance of rights between mother and unborn child is absolutely fine to debate in a sober and rational way. Bringing unreachable deities whose views we claim to know into the debate is unhelpful.
This allows me to trot out one of my vasectomy stories. As my wife drove me away from the clinic, in loose fitting trousers, feeling distinctly sorry for myself, a large bunch of angry middle aged Christians started shouting abuse at her (it was a beautiful Spring day and the windows were down. I was momentarily puzzled, then furious. Clearly they were under the impression we'd been for an abortion. Despite my incapacity, I was quite clean to get out the car and kick off. First, to correct them, second and more importantly - how fucking dare some Christian talk to my wife like that - I may have been sore but I am quite a large bloke and have never felt it more urgent to dish out violent retribution to these ponces or at the very least tell them how little I cared for the views of their imaginary sky fairy. Thirdly - check what's going on in there before protesting so rudely you fucking idiots. And fourthly (this overlapped with secondly, on reflection) - if we had just had an abortion, it was a decision we would have come to soberly and sadly and for some good reason and it was no business of their imaginary friend.
Happily for all concerned, it took me a while to get past puzzle and shock, and my wife is less keen to seek trouble than I am, and by the time all this aligned in my head we were at least a mile away.
If Republic can send hecklers to scream at members of the royal family attending church or meeting crowds, anti abortion activists can send activists to pray and shout at those having an abortion.
Or you ban both as harassment. You have the same laws for right and left
It’s not right and left. There’s no equivalence. No one WANTS to be at an abortion clinic. Deciding to have an abortion is (for obvious reasons I’ve no personal experience of it) usually a traumatic, once in a lifetime, decision to make for a variety of reasons. Shouting at someone in those circumstances adds trauma on trauma.
That’s not equivalent to shouting at a member of the Royal Family. It’s not even close.
A very disappointing post even by this site’s standards.
Silently praying is also apparently not allowed.
If you find yourself walking past an abortion clinic and say a little prayer to yourself, that is not illegal. If you stage a protest designed to intimidate people using the clinic, in which people stand there ostentatiously but silently praying, that is illegal.
How does one stand ostentatiously?
People 'stand' is ostentatious and intimidatory ways all the time. It's about time, space, place, who else is there, eyes. Ask many young women and girls.
Does anyone have a view on fairly popular Youtuber Tom Nicholas when he comments on politics.
Thumbnail. A youngish guy (early 30s?) with a background in theatre for young people, and 650k Youtube subscriber. He is on Nebula, I think - a producer owned co-operative platform.
TLDR: I have only seen a couple, to me he is "interesting", but needs a fact check. He's a bit hasty in his judgements on history, and I think has a slight tendency to work backwards from his pre-conclusions. I think part of that is the limitations of the medium, and being spread a bit too thin.
Does anyone have a view on fairly popular Youtuber Tom Nicholas when he comments on politics.
Thumbnail. A youngish guy (early 30s?) with a background in theatre for young people, and 650k Youtube subscriber. He is on Nebula, I think - a producer owned co-operative platform.
TLDR: I have only seen a couple, to me he is "interesting", but needs a fact check. He's a bit hasty in his judgements on history, and I think has a slight tendency to work backwards from his pre-conclusions. I think part of that is the limitations of the medium, and being spread a bit too thin.
I saw a few that I thought were quite good, then as you say it became clear to me it was left leaning conclusion working back. The mask slips more on his second channel, where he doesn't pretend of any sort of balance. He isn't as bad as JimmyTheGiant, now that guy is popular but absolutely twisting of everything to fit his agenda that has Corbyn-esque levels of left wing world view combined with inflexibility.
I don't think it is a limitation of the medium being spread too thin. Nichols doesn't make tonnes of videos in the way other do. I think it is more limitation of the medium that people quickly grow a particular audience and they become boxed in, if to reinforcing their viewerships biases. If they don't and have a unique takes that are all over the political map, the video can do badly, get lots of dislikes, so isn't spread by the algorithm. Rinse and repeat. Very few (if any) have managed to stop themselves from this.
This debate which Nick is having is not about freedom of religion. It is about how religion is expressed in a shared public space, and whether those expressions fit within the norms of a British culture.
Of course it is about that. Denying it is to argue with reality.
Hard agree. For Nick Timothy, it's not a debate about religion. He is not interested in appropriate expression of their religion in public spaces for Muslims, nor is he interested in that a vast majority are good citizens who integrate and live their lives peaceably.
He's in Daily Mail or Robert Jenrick mode, looking for a "THEM" with which he can make us all frightened so we will go running to Nick's "US" to keep us safe.
50-150 years ago (ish) he would have been talking about Kikes, Mucks and Eyeties - expressed in those terms, in gradually less hysterical terms over the period. Although equally he could have avoided falling into that type of politics.
Whilst the Conservatives maintain that rhetoric at the top of their party, tolerated or supported by the Leader, they are in shackles of their own making
If you don't like Muslims vote Reform If you don't like MUSLIMS vote Reform If you don't like Muslims, don't like Muslims, if you don't like Muslims vote Reform
This is the song Farage is singing.
Politically its seems very stupid, those that don't already are voting Reform. But the flip side those Reform curious by factor of think Labour and Tory are crap but not big Tommy Ten Names fans, not going to help.
Maybe but he'll have thought about it. His essential challenge is to get the racist vote plus the lion's share of pissed off roll-the-dicers. That would likely see him into Downing St. With this he's telegraphing to the first group that he's their man (so don't bother looking at Rupert Lowe or anyone else) in a way that (he hopes) doesn't trigger "oh shit Farage is a racist" alarm bells amongst too many of the second group.
Not that I am a Farage fan, but seems like the better way to win both is continued focus on immigration, especially illegal immigration via small boats, and stuff like 'uman rights met scumbag didn't get deported. There are a sizable proportion of people who think immigration is too high and that the system has abused that aren't on Tommy Ten Name rallies.
It depends how big the 'proper' racist vote is. I think (and Farage clearly does too) that it's enough to make a real difference if he can secure it. If he loses those people to (eg) Restore his path to power becomes far more challenging.
The risk for Farage is that he may well galvinise the anti-racist vote to turn out. That was probably a big factor in the Green win in Gorton and Denton.
Reform still won small town Denton though and most UK seats are closer demographically to Denton than inner Manchester bordering Gorton, so it also needs anti Reform tactical votes to stop them
Ha ha. What a prick. Completely unenforceable in any case. How do you prove that an assembly constitutes prayer or that the participants are Muslims? If Farage so wrecked our human rights law that this kind of thing became enforceable we would all be fucked, Muslim or otherwise.
If we can ban prayer outside abortion clinics then it can’t be beyond the wit of legislators.
Oh dear, we really are parotting braindead far right talking points today. You can ban protests in specific places, sure. So you could ban anyone from Trafalgar Square. The ban on "prayer" outside abortion clinics is a ban on any gathering designed to intimidate users of abortion clinics. It would apply to Muslims praying, Christians praying or atheists protesting without prayer. If the abortion clinic law attempted to ban Christian prayer specifically it would be laughed out of court and rightly so.
Funny that out of all the rich variety of moralising, oppressive. cultish religions apparently waiting to destroy Britishness that it’s the Christers that are hanging about in groups to bully women at potentially one of the worst moments of their lives.
And the unborn child is irrelevant I suppose? Most Muslim majority nations ban abortion of course except in the case of a risk to a woman's life, it is not just conservative Christian evangelicals and the Roman Catholic church anti
The balance of rights between mother and unborn child is absolutely fine to debate in a sober and rational way. Bringing unreachable deities whose views we claim to know into the debate is unhelpful.
This allows me to trot out one of my vasectomy stories. As my wife drove me away from the clinic, in loose fitting trousers, feeling distinctly sorry for myself, a large bunch of angry middle aged Christians started shouting abuse at her (it was a beautiful Spring day and the windows were down. I was momentarily puzzled, then furious. Clearly they were under the impression we'd been for an abortion. Despite my incapacity, I was quite clean to get out the car and kick off. First, to correct them, second and more importantly - how fucking dare some Christian talk to my wife like that - I may have been sore but I am quite a large bloke and have never felt it more urgent to dish out violent retribution to these ponces or at the very least tell them how little I cared for the views of their imaginary sky fairy. Thirdly - check what's going on in there before protesting so rudely you fucking idiots. And fourthly (this overlapped with secondly, on reflection) - if we had just had an abortion, it was a decision we would have come to soberly and sadly and for some good reason and it was no business of their imaginary friend.
Happily for all concerned, it took me a while to get past puzzle and shock, and my wife is less keen to seek trouble than I am, and by the time all this aligned in my head we were at least a mile away.
If Republic can send hecklers to scream at members of the royal family attending church or meeting crowds, anti abortion activists can send activists to pray and shout at those having an abortion.
Or you ban both as harassment. You have the same laws for right and left
It’s not right and left. There’s no equivalence. No one WANTS to be at an abortion clinic. Deciding to have an abortion is (for obvious reasons I’ve no personal experience of it) usually a traumatic, once in a lifetime, decision to make for a variety of reasons. Shouting at someone in those circumstances adds trauma on trauma.
That’s not equivalent to shouting at a member of the Royal Family. It’s not even close.
A very disappointing post even by this site’s standards.
Silently praying is also apparently not allowed.
If you find yourself walking past an abortion clinic and say a little prayer to yourself, that is not illegal. If you stage a protest designed to intimidate people using the clinic, in which people stand there ostentatiously but silently praying, that is illegal.
How does one stand ostentatiously?
You have to do a course. They are run by bouncers and doormen at posh hotels.
If anyone from Republic were heckling the King at healthcare facilities he is going to in order to get medical treatment, eg heckling him while seeking cancer treatment, then that would be equivalent to heckling women seeking medical treatment.
That does not happen though, as far as I know. If it did, it would be repugnant.
A woman having an abortion is aborting her unborn child, not seeking medical treatment for herself so it is not exactly equivalent even then
At some poiint perhaps you should realise you have been given several yards of rope now and have more than enough to hang yourself many times over. You are really not doing your image or your arguments any good here.
You and Bart are fanatical libertarians, why on earth should I care what your image of me and my argument is on this issue?
I wasn't actually thinking about Bart and myself. More the vast majority of other people reading this who would, I suspect, find your expressed views rather extreme.
Certainly not if they were Catholic or conservative evangelical or even Muslim.
In any case I am not necessarily saying end the ban on protests outside abortion clinics, more if you ban that then you also must ban heckling of the royal family on community visits
Except official engagements and personal healthcare are not remotely comparable.
In the sense that personal healthcare funded by the taxpayer on the NHS for an abortion is not the same as duchy or crown profit funded royal visits no
Let us not forget that every time inflation spikes, the pensioners are given a budget-destroying increase under the triple lock.
If the Government have any sense they will finally axe that now, as they should have done after the last election which they won without the grey vote.
Let us not forget that every time inflation spikes, the pensioners are given a budget-destroying increase under the triple lock.
If the Government have any sense they will finally axe that now, as they should have done after the last election which they won without the grey vote.
So they won't.
After their WFA disaster probably not, though they might means test it as they now do with WFA after their half climb down
Does anyone have a view on fairly popular Youtuber Tom Nicholas when he comments on politics.
Thumbnail. A youngish guy (early 30s?) with a background in theatre for young people, and 650k Youtube subscriber. He is on Nebula, I think - a producer owned co-operative platform.
TLDR: I have only seen a couple, to me he is "interesting", but needs a fact check. He's a bit hasty in his judgements on history, and I think has a slight tendency to work backwards from his pre-conclusions. I think part of that is the limitations of the medium, and being spread a bit too thin.
Nebula at the moment doesn’t have that much UK content so I suspect everything is aimed at the US market.
Saying that Tom Scott has a new series starting Monday where he’s visiting every county in England - so Nebula’s audience may increase - we get it for Jetlag
Does anyone have a view on fairly popular Youtuber Tom Nicholas when he comments on politics.
Thumbnail. A youngish guy (early 30s?) with a background in theatre for young people, and 650k Youtube subscriber. He is on Nebula, I think - a producer owned co-operative platform.
TLDR: I have only seen a couple, to me he is "interesting", but needs a fact check. He's a bit hasty in his judgements on history, and I think has a slight tendency to work backwards from his pre-conclusions. I think part of that is the limitations of the medium, and being spread a bit too thin.
Nebula at the moment doesn’t have that much UK content so I suspect everything is aimed at the US market.
Saying that Tom Scott has a new series starting Monday where he’s visiting every county in England - so Nebula’s audience may increase - we get it for Jetlag
I really wanted to like Jetlag, but couldn't. I am actually finding that Wendover Proudctions and Half as Interesting aren't as good as they used to me (at least for me).
Tom Scott's Lateral I loved to begin with, but feels like it is running out of road now. User suggested questions that are often quite silly now. Shame Technical Difficulties don't make many videos, they are very funny geeky bunch.
Let us not forget that every time inflation spikes, the pensioners are given a budget-destroying increase under the triple lock.
Agree with the sentiment but not actually true. It was restricted to a double lock in 2022-23 when inflation last went nuclear (fossil?).
That the government didn't use that as an excuse to bin it permanently was a gross act of fiscal vandalism. I'll say the same about the current government if they don't take the opportunity now.
Talking of religion - any converts for my fusion of Crom and Unitarianism.
“Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad. Why we lived, or why we died. No, all that matters is that two offered weak tea and acceptance to many. That's what's important! Vague niceness pleases you, Crom... so grant me one request. Grant me lots of platitudes! And if you do not listen, then to HELL with you!"
Crom is the kind of deity you would prefer if he took no notice of you.
Let us not forget that every time inflation spikes, the pensioners are given a budget-destroying increase under the triple lock.
If the Government have any sense they will finally axe that now, as they should have done after the last election which they won without the grey vote.
So they won't.
You still need some grey vote to get elected .
Unless there’s a cross party agreement to get rid of the triple lock then I don’t see it going anytime soon .
Talking of religion - any converts for my fusion of Crom and Unitarianism.
“Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad. Why we lived, or why we died. No, all that matters is that two offered weak tea and acceptance to many. That's what's important! Vague niceness pleases you, Crom... so grant me one request. Grant me lots of platitudes! And if you do not listen, then to HELL with you!"
Crom, grant me the strength to endure a circle of well-meaning moderates, and if not, at least spare me the guitar hymn
Let us not forget that every time inflation spikes, the pensioners are given a budget-destroying increase under the triple lock.
If the Government have any sense they will finally axe that now, as they should have done after the last election which they won without the grey vote.
So they won't.
You still need some grey vote to get elected .
Unless there’s a cross party agreement to get rid of the triple lock then I don’t see it going anytime soon .
Given the Lib Dims and SNP still want to hose billions on the unworthy WASPI women it’s extremely unlikely there will be any consensus.
If you don't like Muslims vote Reform If you don't like MUSLIMS vote Reform If you don't like Muslims, don't like Muslims, if you don't like Muslims vote Reform
This is the song Farage is singing.
Politically its seems very stupid, those that don't already are voting Reform. But the flip side those Reform curious by factor of think Labour and Tory are crap but not big Tommy Ten Names fans, not going to help.
Maybe but he'll have thought about it. His essential challenge is to get the racist vote plus the lion's share of pissed off roll-the-dicers. That would likely see him into Downing St. With this he's telegraphing to the first group that he's their man (so don't bother looking at Rupert Lowe or anyone else) in a way that (he hopes) doesn't trigger "oh shit Farage is a racist" alarm bells amongst too many of the second group.
Not that I am a Farage fan, but seems like the better way to win both is continued focus on immigration, especially illegal immigration via small boats, and stuff like 'uman rights met scumbag didn't get deported. There are a sizable proportion of people who think immigration is too high and that the system has abused that aren't on Tommy Ten Name rallies.
It depends how big the 'proper' racist vote is. I think (and Farage clearly does too) that it's enough to make a real difference if he can secure it. If he loses those people to (eg) Restore his path to power becomes far more challenging.
The risk for Farage is that he may well galvinise the anti-racist vote to turn out. That was probably a big factor in the Green win in Gorton and Denton.
That is a risk and I hope it crystallises. But I don't think he has a route to victory without keeping the racist portion of his base onside. It's getting harder for him now with the populist space filling up. He has others eyeing up the hardcore right and the Greens have emerged as a vehicle for people who want something new without the banging on about immigrants.
Ha ha. What a prick. Completely unenforceable in any case. How do you prove that an assembly constitutes prayer or that the participants are Muslims? If Farage so wrecked our human rights law that this kind of thing became enforceable we would all be fucked, Muslim or otherwise.
If we can ban prayer outside abortion clinics then it can’t be beyond the wit of legislators.
Oh dear, we really are parotting braindead far right talking points today. You can ban protests in specific places, sure. So you could ban anyone from Trafalgar Square. The ban on "prayer" outside abortion clinics is a ban on any gathering designed to intimidate users of abortion clinics. It would apply to Muslims praying, Christians praying or atheists protesting without prayer. If the abortion clinic law attempted to ban Christian prayer specifically it would be laughed out of court and rightly so.
Funny that out of all the rich variety of moralising, oppressive. cultish religions apparently waiting to destroy Britishness that it’s the Christers that are hanging about in groups to bully women at potentially one of the worst moments of their lives.
And the unborn child is irrelevant I suppose? Most Muslim majority nations ban abortion of course except in the case of a risk to a woman's life, it is not just conservative Christian evangelicals and the Roman Catholic church anti
Yeah, but so far it’s only the Christians demanding that they be allowed to pray in womens’ faces.
The law doesn't even mention religion.
That is how it works in a liberal democracy. We don't outlaw religions; we outlaw doing stuff to harm others, and if religion is claimed as justification for doing that stuff, then we make it clear that is no justification.
Yet again, this was the guidance published during the consultation over this particular law:
It is unacceptable for anyone to be harassed or distressed simply for exercising their legal right to access abortion services. The Government has always expected the police and local authorities to use their powers to deal with those who break the law.
The rights to gather, to express views and to manifest religious beliefs are a cornerstone of democracy in Britain and people should be free to gather and express their views, however uncomfortable they are to others, providing they do so within the law.
To be clear, this legislation only affects certain activities within 150 metres of a clinic or hospital. Not all protests are banned and neither does this amount to criminalising those who hold pro-life views who are in a Safe Access Zone. It does not affect people’s rights to gather or to express their views about abortion or to manifest their religious beliefs about abortion anywhere else.
It is vitally important that law enforcement agencies recognise the rights of both of those accessing or providing abortion services and protestors and, in enforcement, seek to balance their respective rights...
Seeking to specifically ban a particular religion from public prayer isn't even vaguely comparable to what section 9 of the Public Order Act does.
So, using the precedent, the Reform (fuck)wits declare that people feel intimidated by certain kinds of prayer in public.
I think when the law above was passed, some people mentioned that banning things, on the basis that people felt offended by them, had a risk.
That some people are genuinely offended by things that shouldn't be banned.
The law was nothing to do with being "offended", genuinely or not. It was drafted to prevent women accessing a service from being harassed or intimidated, within 150m of the service premises, by those trying to persuade them not to access that service.
The framing you describe is not an honest description of what the law says, or the very narrow set of locations where it applies.
It is no kind of precedent for what Farage and the rest of the motley crew are proposing.
It’s not about honesty - I mean, Farage, honesty? really?
It’s what they will try and get away with.
Of course. Why is why they need to be nailed down as sectarian provocateurs.
Let us not forget that every time inflation spikes, the pensioners are given a budget-destroying increase under the triple lock.
If the Government have any sense they will finally axe that now, as they should have done after the last election which they won without the grey vote.
So they won't.
You still need some grey vote to get elected .
Unless there’s a cross party agreement to get rid of the triple lock then I don’t see it going anytime soon .
There’s no point being in government, if you can’t take a decision some people will not like. The triple lock has to go.
Let us not forget that every time inflation spikes, the pensioners are given a budget-destroying increase under the triple lock.
If the Government have any sense they will finally axe that now, as they should have done after the last election which they won without the grey vote.
So they won't.
You still need some grey vote to get elected .
Unless there’s a cross party agreement to get rid of the triple lock then I don’t see it going anytime soon .
There’s no point being in government, if you can’t take a decision some people will not like. The triple lock has to go.
How to say farewell to the next election without trying - which is why it won’t go until it’s too late.
Worse going forward people’s pensions are going to be smaller rather than better so it’s going to be more needed than ever
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If you don't like Muslims vote Reform If you don't like MUSLIMS vote Reform If you don't like Muslims, don't like Muslims, if you don't like Muslims vote Reform
This is the song Farage is singing.
Politically its seems very stupid, those that don't already are voting Reform. But the flip side those Reform curious by factor of think Labour and Tory are crap but not big Tommy Ten Names fans, not going to help.
Maybe but he'll have thought about it. His essential challenge is to get the racist vote plus the lion's share of pissed off roll-the-dicers. That would likely see him into Downing St. With this he's telegraphing to the first group that he's their man (so don't bother looking at Rupert Lowe or anyone else) in a way that (he hopes) doesn't trigger "oh shit Farage is a racist" alarm bells amongst too many of the second group.
Not that I am a Farage fan, but seems like the better way to win both is continued focus on immigration, especially illegal immigration via small boats, and stuff like 'uman rights met scumbag didn't get deported. There are a sizable proportion of people who think immigration is too high and that the system has abused that aren't on Tommy Ten Name rallies.
It depends how big the 'proper' racist vote is. I think (and Farage clearly does too) that it's enough to make a real difference if he can secure it. If he loses those people to (eg) Restore his path to power becomes far more challenging.
The risk for Farage is that he may well galvinise the anti-racist vote to turn out. That was probably a big factor in the Green win in Gorton and Denton.
Reform still won small town Denton though and most UK seats are closer demographically to Denton than inner Manchester bordering Gorton, so it also needs anti Reform tactical votes to stop them
Do we know they won Denton? Or is that an assumption?
Let us not forget that every time inflation spikes, the pensioners are given a budget-destroying increase under the triple lock.
If the Government have any sense they will finally axe that now, as they should have done after the last election which they won without the grey vote.
So they won't.
You still need some grey vote to get elected .
Unless there’s a cross party agreement to get rid of the triple lock then I don’t see it going anytime soon .
There’s no point being in government, if you can’t take a decision some people will not like. The triple lock has to go.
Politically risky, 65% of voters overall want to definitely or probably keep the triple lock, just 11% to scrap it.
Even 38% of Labour voters definitely want to keep the triple lock and 42% of UK voters overall want to definitely keep the triple lock
If anyone from Republic were heckling the King at healthcare facilities he is going to in order to get medical treatment, eg heckling him while seeking cancer treatment, then that would be equivalent to heckling women seeking medical treatment.
That does not happen though, as far as I know. If it did, it would be repugnant.
A woman having an abortion is aborting her unborn child, not seeking medical treatment for herself so it is not exactly equivalent even then
At some poiint perhaps you should realise you have been given several yards of rope now and have more than enough to hang yourself many times over. You are really not doing your image or your arguments any good here.
You and Bart are fanatical libertarians, why on earth should I care what your image of me and my argument is on this issue?
If you don't like Muslims vote Reform If you don't like MUSLIMS vote Reform If you don't like Muslims, don't like Muslims, if you don't like Muslims vote Reform
This is the song Farage is singing.
Politically its seems very stupid, those that don't already are voting Reform. But the flip side those Reform curious by factor of think Labour and Tory are crap but not big Tommy Ten Names fans, not going to help.
Maybe but he'll have thought about it. His essential challenge is to get the racist vote plus the lion's share of pissed off roll-the-dicers. That would likely see him into Downing St. With this he's telegraphing to the first group that he's their man (so don't bother looking at Rupert Lowe or anyone else) in a way that (he hopes) doesn't trigger "oh shit Farage is a racist" alarm bells amongst too many of the second group.
Not that I am a Farage fan, but seems like the better way to win both is continued focus on immigration, especially illegal immigration via small boats, and stuff like 'uman rights met scumbag didn't get deported. There are a sizable proportion of people who think immigration is too high and that the system has abused that aren't on Tommy Ten Name rallies.
It depends how big the 'proper' racist vote is. I think (and Farage clearly does too) that it's enough to make a real difference if he can secure it. If he loses those people to (eg) Restore his path to power becomes far more challenging.
The risk for Farage is that he may well galvinise the anti-racist vote to turn out. That was probably a big factor in the Green win in Gorton and Denton.
Reform still won small town Denton though and most UK seats are closer demographically to Denton than inner Manchester bordering Gorton, so it also needs anti Reform tactical votes to stop them
Do we know they won Denton? Or is that an assumption?
Given about 1/3 of the seat was in Denton and Reform came a clear second almost certainly they did
If you don't like Muslims vote Reform If you don't like MUSLIMS vote Reform If you don't like Muslims, don't like Muslims, if you don't like Muslims vote Reform
This is the song Farage is singing.
Politically its seems very stupid, those that don't already are voting Reform. But the flip side those Reform curious by factor of think Labour and Tory are crap but not big Tommy Ten Names fans, not going to help.
Maybe but he'll have thought about it. His essential challenge is to get the racist vote plus the lion's share of pissed off roll-the-dicers. That would likely see him into Downing St. With this he's telegraphing to the first group that he's their man (so don't bother looking at Rupert Lowe or anyone else) in a way that (he hopes) doesn't trigger "oh shit Farage is a racist" alarm bells amongst too many of the second group.
Not that I am a Farage fan, but seems like the better way to win both is continued focus on immigration, especially illegal immigration via small boats, and stuff like 'uman rights met scumbag didn't get deported. There are a sizable proportion of people who think immigration is too high and that the system has abused that aren't on Tommy Ten Name rallies.
It depends how big the 'proper' racist vote is. I think (and Farage clearly does too) that it's enough to make a real difference if he can secure it. If he loses those people to (eg) Restore his path to power becomes far more challenging.
The risk for Farage is that he may well galvinise the anti-racist vote to turn out. That was probably a big factor in the Green win in Gorton and Denton.
Reform still won small town Denton though and most UK seats are closer demographically to Denton than inner Manchester bordering Gorton, so it also needs anti Reform tactical votes to stop them
Do we know they won Denton? Or is that an assumption?
One of the examples they give is ridicilous about Welsh at a wedding. Its clearly as injoke by the people asking for the cameo. TSE would never make it as an MP these days, all that abuse of the French and of highly margalised groups e.pineapple pizza lovers.
You have to be mega greedy to be doing Cameo when you already got the likes of GB News gig that pays a fortune.
Trump: "Without USA, NATO IS A PAPER TIGER! Now that the fight is Militarily WON, with very little danger for them, they complain about high oil prices they are forced to pay, but don’t want to help open the Strait of Hormuz. So easy for them to do, with so little risk. COWARDS, & we will REMEMBER!"
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
Yup. Large, deep recession if it continues. Lots of inflation.
If anyone from Republic were heckling the King at healthcare facilities he is going to in order to get medical treatment, eg heckling him while seeking cancer treatment, then that would be equivalent to heckling women seeking medical treatment.
That does not happen though, as far as I know. If it did, it would be repugnant.
A woman having an abortion is aborting her unborn child, not seeking medical treatment for herself so it is not exactly equivalent even then
At some poiint perhaps you should realise you have been given several yards of rope now and have more than enough to hang yourself many times over. You are really not doing your image or your arguments any good here.
You and Bart are fanatical libertarians, why on earth should I care what your image of me and my argument is on this issue?
If anyone from Republic were heckling the King at healthcare facilities he is going to in order to get medical treatment, eg heckling him while seeking cancer treatment, then that would be equivalent to heckling women seeking medical treatment.
That does not happen though, as far as I know. If it did, it would be repugnant.
A woman having an abortion is aborting her unborn child, not seeking medical treatment for herself so it is not exactly equivalent even then
At some poiint perhaps you should realise you have been given several yards of rope now and have more than enough to hang yourself many times over. You are really not doing your image or your arguments any good here.
You and Bart are fanatical libertarians, why on earth should I care what your image of me and my argument is on this issue?
Are you a fanatical Christian?
No I am C of E and not a conservative evangelical either but high church Catholic Anglican
Trump: "Without USA, NATO IS A PAPER TIGER! Now that the fight is Militarily WON, with very little danger for them, they complain about high oil prices they are forced to pay, but don’t want to help open the Strait of Hormuz. So easy for them to do, with so little risk. COWARDS, & we will REMEMBER!"
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
Or not.
Trump casually threatens to use nuclear weapons to end the war "in two seconds" while sitting right next to the Prime Minister of Japan—the only country to ever suffer an atomic bombing. The host calls him a complete sociopath. https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2034797512712753489
Trump: "Without USA, NATO IS A PAPER TIGER! Now that the fight is Militarily WON, with very little danger for them, they complain about high oil prices they are forced to pay, but don’t want to help open the Strait of Hormuz. So easy for them to do, with so little risk. COWARDS, & we will REMEMBER!"
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
Or not.
Trump casually threatens to use nuclear weapons to end the war "in two seconds" while sitting right next to the Prime Minister of Japan—the only country to ever suffer an atomic bombing. The host calls him a complete sociopath. https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2034797512712753489
Unusual take - the atomic bombs on Japan saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
NZ has 40 days of oil left, according to the Minister of Finance, Nicole Willis.
No wonder Saint Jacinta bailed and went to Oz.
That was more due to the lifestyle choices of her boyfriend now husband. The risk of arrest, trial and imprisonment might have had something to do with it as well.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
Yup. Large, deep recession if it continues. Lots of inflation.
Not sure what else to say about it.
The IEA are talking about reducing speed limits, WFH, restricting car use in urban areas, switching to renewables and cycling more. They should try some of those ideas out on PB first ...
If anyone from Republic were heckling the King at healthcare facilities he is going to in order to get medical treatment, eg heckling him while seeking cancer treatment, then that would be equivalent to heckling women seeking medical treatment.
That does not happen though, as far as I know. If it did, it would be repugnant.
A woman having an abortion is aborting her unborn child, not seeking medical treatment for herself so it is not exactly equivalent even then
At some poiint perhaps you should realise you have been given several yards of rope now and have more than enough to hang yourself many times over. You are really not doing your image or your arguments any good here.
You and Bart are fanatical libertarians, why on earth should I care what your image of me and my argument is on this issue?
Are you a fanatical Christian?
No I am C of E and not a conservative evangelical either but high church Catholic Anglican
Sorry I’m high church Catholic Anglican and the type of Christian you are has got zilch to do with your politics or viewpoint and everything to do with the type of church service you prefer.
Around here your viewpoint would have had quiet (and loud) words said if your viewpoint was being said outloud suggesting you went elsewhere
OT - The planning was not inept because the US military and State Dept are useless. The failures are down to the whole thing being rushed to distract from other matters (Epstein, the economy, Noem, insert additional failures here).
Yet - the day the war ends guess what comes roaring back onto the front pages. Why it will be Epstein of course followed up by the US economy. So - whatever the consequences - I doubt Trump will willingly rush to end the 'special military operation'.
Trump: "Without USA, NATO IS A PAPER TIGER! Now that the fight is Militarily WON, with very little danger for them, they complain about high oil prices they are forced to pay, but don’t want to help open the Strait of Hormuz. So easy for them to do, with so little risk. COWARDS, & we will REMEMBER!"
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
Or not.
Trump casually threatens to use nuclear weapons to end the war "in two seconds" while sitting right next to the Prime Minister of Japan—the only country to ever suffer an atomic bombing. The host calls him a complete sociopath. https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2034797512712753489
Unusual take - the atomic bombs on Japan saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
On the bright side it presumably helps significantly with climate change?
Trump: "Without USA, NATO IS A PAPER TIGER! Now that the fight is Militarily WON, with very little danger for them, they complain about high oil prices they are forced to pay, but don’t want to help open the Strait of Hormuz. So easy for them to do, with so little risk. COWARDS, & we will REMEMBER!"
Trump moving to blame NATO for the oil prices going up .
Well he needs to try and point the blame elsewhere - issue is that it’s not an NATO issue beyond 1 stray missile that hit Cyprus but wasn’t actually sent by Iran merely their proxy
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
On the bright side it presumably helps significantly with climate change?
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
Or not.
Trump casually threatens to use nuclear weapons to end the war "in two seconds" while sitting right next to the Prime Minister of Japan—the only country to ever suffer an atomic bombing. The host calls him a complete sociopath. https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2034797512712753489
Exactly. The far from negligible risk of something cataclysmic is not limited to the economy. Trump2 is a WMD.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
Or not.
Trump casually threatens to use nuclear weapons to end the war "in two seconds" while sitting right next to the Prime Minister of Japan—the only country to ever suffer an atomic bombing. The host calls him a complete sociopath. https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2034797512712753489
Unusual take - the atomic bombs on Japan saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
Had it been necessary for the US to invade, then there would have been hundreds of thousands of US casualties, and many more Japanese casualities. In addition, there might have been millions dead from starvation, given the blockade of the islands and the failure of the rice crop that year.
That said...
Japan and the US were already in negotiations, and the declaration of war by the Soviet Union had tipped the senior Japanese leadership into a desperate funk. The official US Strategic Bombing Survey in 1946 concluded that the war would have ended on substantially the same terms, even without the atomic bomb. But then again, one might add, they would say that.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
Or not.
Trump casually threatens to use nuclear weapons to end the war "in two seconds" while sitting right next to the Prime Minister of Japan—the only country to ever suffer an atomic bombing. The host calls him a complete sociopath. https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2034797512712753489
Unusual take - the atomic bombs on Japan saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
Had it been necessary for the US to invade, then there would have been hundreds of thousands of US casualties, and many more Japanese casualities. In addition, there might have been millions dead from starvation, given the blockade of the islands and the failure of the rice crop that year.
That said...
Japan and the US were already in negotiations, and the declaration of war by the Soviet Union had tipped the senior Japanese leadership into a desperate funk. The official US Strategic Bombing Survey in 1946 concluded that the war would have ended on substantially the same terms, even without the atomic bomb. But then again, one might add, they would say that.
The clue is in the fact that they didn't surrender after the first.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
The thing is there isn’t actually much anyone can do to fix the issue.
Drones are cheap enough and easy enough to build that no matter what defenses you use some drones will get through and damage / destroy the ship.
So how there is no way we can keep the Strait open unless we can get Iran to desist
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
Or not.
Trump casually threatens to use nuclear weapons to end the war "in two seconds" while sitting right next to the Prime Minister of Japan—the only country to ever suffer an atomic bombing. The host calls him a complete sociopath. https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2034797512712753489
Unusual take - the atomic bombs on Japan saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
Had it been necessary for the US to invade, then there would have been hundreds of thousands of US casualties, and many more Japanese casualities. In addition, there might have been millions dead from starvation, given the blockade of the islands and the failure of the rice crop that year.
That said...
Japan and the US were already in negotiations, and the declaration of war by the Soviet Union had tipped the senior Japanese leadership into a desperate funk. The official US Strategic Bombing Survey in 1946 concluded that the war would have ended on substantially the same terms, even without the atomic bomb. But then again, one might add, they would say that.
The clue is in the fact that they didn't surrender after the first.
They surrendered after the Russkies took over Manchuria and North Korea.
The report I read said that they tried to enter the base by asking at the entrance to be let in. When they was declined they hung around, looking shifty, and were then arrested.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
Or not.
Trump casually threatens to use nuclear weapons to end the war "in two seconds" while sitting right next to the Prime Minister of Japan—the only country to ever suffer an atomic bombing. The host calls him a complete sociopath. https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2034797512712753489
Unusual take - the atomic bombs on Japan saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
Had it been necessary for the US to invade, then there would have been hundreds of thousands of US casualties, and many more Japanese casualities. In addition, there might have been millions dead from starvation, given the blockade of the islands and the failure of the rice crop that year.
That said...
Japan and the US were already in negotiations, and the declaration of war by the Soviet Union had tipped the senior Japanese leadership into a desperate funk. The official US Strategic Bombing Survey in 1946 concluded that the war would have ended on substantially the same terms, even without the atomic bomb. But then again, one might add, they would say that.
The clue is in the fact that they didn't surrender after the first.
And iirc a portion of the Japanese military didn't want to surrender even after the *second* bomb and tried to stop the surrender.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
Or not.
Trump casually threatens to use nuclear weapons to end the war "in two seconds" while sitting right next to the Prime Minister of Japan—the only country to ever suffer an atomic bombing. The host calls him a complete sociopath. https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2034797512712753489
Unusual take - the atomic bombs on Japan saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
Had it been necessary for the US to invade, then there would have been hundreds of thousands of US casualties, and many more Japanese casualities. In addition, there might have been millions dead from starvation, given the blockade of the islands and the failure of the rice crop that year.
That said...
Japan and the US were already in negotiations, and the declaration of war by the Soviet Union had tipped the senior Japanese leadership into a desperate funk. The official US Strategic Bombing Survey in 1946 concluded that the war would have ended on substantially the same terms, even without the atomic bomb. But then again, one might add, they would say that.
The “negotiations” included such gems as
- Japan would not be occupied - The Japanese military would remain - The conquests wouldn’t be given up - The Japanese offered the Russians to team up to fight the US.
The US was reading all this via ULTRA.
Essentially, the Japanese “peace faction” wanted the war to be stopped, but Japan keep everything. Including Korea and China
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
Yup. Large, deep recession if it continues. Lots of inflation.
Not sure what else to say about it.
The IEA are talking about reducing speed limits, WFH, restricting car use in urban areas, switching to renewables and cycling more. They should try some of those ideas out on PB first ...
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
On the bright side it presumably helps significantly with climate change?
Just another reminder that we should have got on with net zero further and faster, the climate change benefits are becoming a smaller part of the total benefits.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
On the bright side it presumably helps significantly with climate change?
That depends on the reaction. If governments bankrupt themselves in a futile attempt to subsidise fossil fuels and the economy craters, then there won't be the public or private investment capital for renewables, etc, to transition away from fossil fuels.
Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
It's pretty simple. If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
Or not.
Trump casually threatens to use nuclear weapons to end the war "in two seconds" while sitting right next to the Prime Minister of Japan—the only country to ever suffer an atomic bombing. The host calls him a complete sociopath. https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2034797512712753489
Unusual take - the atomic bombs on Japan saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
Had it been necessary for the US to invade, then there would have been hundreds of thousands of US casualties, and many more Japanese casualities. In addition, there might have been millions dead from starvation, given the blockade of the islands and the failure of the rice crop that year.
That said...
Japan and the US were already in negotiations, and the declaration of war by the Soviet Union had tipped the senior Japanese leadership into a desperate funk. The official US Strategic Bombing Survey in 1946 concluded that the war would have ended on substantially the same terms, even without the atomic bomb. But then again, one might add, they would say that.
The “negotiations” included such gems as
- Japan would not be occupied - The Japanese military would remain - The conquests wouldn’t be given up - The Japanese offered the Russians to team up to fight the US.
The US was reading all this via ULTRA.
Essentially, the Japanese “peace faction” wanted the war to be stopped, but Japan keep everything. Including Korea and China
Ah, so not unlike Stauffenberg and co. regarding Germany?
Comments
I am as atheist as it comes, but I respect others rights to believe whatever they please, I just don't want it to be made compulsory for anyone else. So long as it is not causing harm to others, people should be able to practice however they please, it is no business of the state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law
PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.
In any case I am not necessarily saying end the ban on protests outside abortion clinics, more if you ban that then you also must ban heckling of the royal family on community visits
It’s what they will try and get away with.
He's in Daily Mail or Robert Jenrick mode, looking for a "THEM" with which he can make us all frightened so we will go running to Nick's "US" to keep us safe.
50-150 years ago (ish) he would have been talking about Kikes, Mucks and Eyeties - expressed in those terms, in gradually less hysterical terms over the period. Although equally he could have avoided falling into that type of politics.
Whilst the Conservatives maintain that rhetoric at the top of their party, tolerated or supported by the Leader, they are in shackles of their own making
https://www.humanism.scot/2024/03/25/huge-anti-abortion-protests-marks-final-day-of-lent-encouraged-by-paisley-diocese/
Was he the guy who was commuting from Finland?
‘ The claim will be discontinued with "no order as to costs" after "proceedings developed overnight," according to Anne Studd KC, who was representing the victims.’
https://x.com/skynews/status/2034972679531344333?s=61
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Harry_Stanley
Does anyone have a view on fairly popular Youtuber Tom Nicholas when he comments on politics.
Thumbnail. A youngish guy (early 30s?) with a background in theatre for young people, and 650k Youtube subscriber. He is on Nebula, I think - a producer owned co-operative platform.
Here is an example:
Why They Seem So Desperate for War
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBCAxhgm00s
Article about that video:
https://www.patreon.com/posts/video-why-love-151377236
TLDR: I have only seen a couple, to me he is "interesting", but needs a fact check. He's a bit hasty in his judgements on history, and I think has a slight tendency to work backwards from his pre-conclusions. I think part of that is the limitations of the medium, and being spread a bit too thin.
I don't think it is a limitation of the medium being spread too thin. Nichols doesn't make tonnes of videos in the way other do. I think it is more limitation of the medium that people quickly grow a particular audience and they become boxed in, if to reinforcing their viewerships biases. If they don't and have a unique takes that are all over the political map, the video can do badly, get lots of dislikes, so isn't spread by the algorithm. Rinse and repeat. Very few (if any) have managed to stop themselves from this.
So they won't.
Saying that Tom Scott has a new series starting Monday where he’s visiting every county in England - so Nebula’s audience may increase - we get it for Jetlag
Belarus' Alexander Lukashenko says Trump has invited him to Mar-a-Lago to discuss a "big deal" with the US.
This would presumably bring his country in from the cold after years of sanctions over his repressions and help for Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Tom Scott's Lateral I loved to begin with, but feels like it is running out of road now. User suggested questions that are often quite silly now. Shame Technical Difficulties don't make many videos, they are very funny geeky bunch.
That the government didn't use that as an excuse to bin it permanently was a gross act of fiscal vandalism. I'll say the same about the current government if they don't take the opportunity now.
Unless there’s a cross party agreement to get rid of the triple lock then I don’t see it going anytime soon .
Why is why they need to be nailed down as sectarian provocateurs.
Or shoot them.
Worse going forward people’s pensions are going to be smaller rather than better so it’s going to be more needed than ever
If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.
And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).
If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
Even 38% of Labour voters definitely want to keep the triple lock and 42% of UK voters overall want to definitely keep the triple lock
https://yougov.com/en-gb/daily-results/20250709-b3999-1
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c79jwxypp1ro
One of the examples they give is ridicilous about Welsh at a wedding. Its clearly as injoke by the people asking for the cameo. TSE would never make it as an MP these days, all that abuse of the French and of highly margalised groups e.pineapple pizza lovers.
You have to be mega greedy to be doing Cameo when you already got the likes of GB News gig that pays a fortune.
@atrupar.com
Trump: "Without USA, NATO IS A PAPER TIGER! Now that the fight is Militarily WON, with very little danger for them, they complain about high oil prices they are forced to pay, but don’t want to help open the Strait of Hormuz. So easy for them to do, with so little risk. COWARDS, & we will REMEMBER!"
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3mhinpcqxbc2s
Not sure what else to say about it.
Trump casually threatens to use nuclear weapons to end the war "in two seconds" while sitting right next to the Prime Minister of Japan—the only country to ever suffer an atomic bombing. The host calls him a complete sociopath.
https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2034797512712753489
Police Scotland said a 34-year-old man and 31-year-old woman were arrested at HM Naval Base Clyde at about 17:00 on Thursday.
The woman's nationality is unknown.
The Royal Navy said the suspects "unsuccessfully attempted" to enter the base, near Helensburgh, Argyll and Bute.
A spokesperson added: "As the matter is subject to an ongoing investigation, we will not comment further."
Police Scotland said its inquiries were ongoing.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c80mej47xz0o
Around here your viewpoint would have had quiet (and loud) words said if your viewpoint was being said outloud suggesting you went elsewhere
Yet - the day the war ends guess what comes roaring back onto the front pages. Why it will be Epstein of course followed up by the US economy. So - whatever the consequences - I doubt Trump will willingly rush to end the 'special military operation'.
I can only assume that @NJ_Timothy and @KemiBadenoch were silent at that time either because of hypocrisy, or just that their casual hatred is more acceptable now.
https://x.com/jdpoc/status/2034722531081359372
Indians don’t really like Pakistan very much do they?
That said...
Japan and the US were already in negotiations, and the declaration of war by the Soviet Union had tipped the senior Japanese leadership into a desperate funk. The official US Strategic Bombing Survey in 1946 concluded that the war would have ended on substantially the same terms, even without the atomic bomb. But then again, one might add, they would say that.
Drones are cheap enough and easy enough to build that no matter what defenses you use some drones will get through and damage / destroy the ship.
So how there is no way we can keep the Strait open unless we can get Iran to desist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Afghanistan–Pakistan_conflict
Their main page now has the breaking news banner with Chuck Norris dies !
All a bit odd.
- Japan would not be occupied
- The Japanese military would remain
- The conquests wouldn’t be given up
- The Japanese offered the Russians to team up to fight the US.
The US was reading all this via ULTRA.
Essentially, the Japanese “peace faction” wanted the war to be stopped, but Japan keep everything. Including Korea and China