I should also add that the one social group it seems acceptable to sneer at is the traditional white working class. Words like stupid, thick, ignorant, bigoted and uneducated are often thrown in to the mix. There's also a thinly veiled classism sometimes, in a way that would never happen with gender, race or sexual orientation.
This isn't usually done in a crude or overtly bigoted way; it's just sneering and undertones. But it's very telling.
Have you ever read any Ruth Rendell mysteries? (Lefty whodunnit writer) -The totally unsubtle visciousness of the descriptions of white working class characters (especially those with 'aspirations') is quite breathtaking.
What I don't recognise is that I and people like me are racist loons who want to live in the 1950s and attempts to cast me as such are counter productive.
So sharing a roasted black baby with me is off the cards then? I was hoping that if I came dressed in a gym slip this would be appropriate attire too. Damnit.
I feel rather sorry for Kipper voters in many respects - it must be hard to be hated more than a common or garden Tory. Funny ole world. I hope @MrJones returns to posting myself - IIRC he was a Kipper of ex-Labour stock.
I think Kippers bear it as a badge of pride - if they're drawing the opprobrium of 'LibLabCon' - especially the BBC - then it proves, to them, that they are doing something correctly.
I didn't see last nights QT - did Labour really put both their feet into their mouths regarding Freud and, if so, what did Dimbleby do to reduce the damage?
Eagle regurgitated the synthetic outage at Freud, and more than one audience member called her out on it while the rest of them booed her
I watched the video earlier, the audience certainly 'got' what Freud was clumsily attempting to say and Eagle was rightly monstered for her "hypocritical, point scoring" as one audience member put it.
Not often you hear an Labour MP booed and jeered to loud applause on QT..!
Looks like some people have taken the advice about Castle Point being a probable UKIP gain. Not many seats now that are a probable or possible UKIP win with generous odds left. Perhaps the last ones are Cambridgeshire NE and Walsall North.
Not usre that NE Cambs is a good bet after their failure last night...
What I don't recognise is that I and people like me are racist loons who want to live in the 1950s and attempts to cast me as such are counter productive.
So sharing a roasted black baby with me is off the cards then? I was hoping that if I came dressed in a gym slip this would be appropriate attire too. Damnit.
I feel rather sorry for Kipper voters in many respects - it must be hard to be hated more than a common or garden Tory. Funny ole world. I hope @MrJones returns to posting myself - IIRC he was a Kipper of ex-Labour stock.
I think Kippers bear it as a badge of pride - if they're drawing the opprobrium of 'LibLabCon' - especially the BBC - then it proves, to them, that they are doing something correctly.
I didn't see last nights QT - did Labour really put both their feet into their mouths regarding Freud and, if so, what did Dimbleby do to reduce the damage?
I think that most UKIP members do indeed regard these criticisms as ritual abuse from partisans of the three main parties. Often it is, although some people clearly have (in my view quite misplaced) fears about UKIP.
I should also add that the one social group it seems acceptable to sneer at is the traditional white working class. Words like stupid, thick, ignorant, bigoted and uneducated are often thrown in to the mix. There's also a thinly veiled classism sometimes, in a way that would never happen with gender, race or sexual orientation.
This isn't usually done in a crude or overtly bigoted way; it's just sneering and undertones. But it's very telling.
Yes, tim often used the term "thick, white racists" to describe people who were upset about becoming a minority in their hometown
On the 'centre ground'. This is interesting. I wonder if the belief in where it lies, according to our current political leadership, is partly a function of our lack of social mobility.
The majority (in some cases, the vast majority) of politicians, journalists, media producers, academics, think-tank researchers and NGO staffers we have today went to Russell Group universities; Oxbridge, Durham, Bristol, Nottingham, Exeter, Warwick, York, LSE, UCL and Imperial.
It is no coincidence that those same professions are dominated by graduates of those universities. It is also hardly surprising that the politicians think the centre-ground is pro-EU and relaxed on immigration: the reports they write, and the conversations they hold (both socially and professionally) are largely to or with one each other.
To take my example, I went to the University of Bristol. In my peer group, the vast majority were on the soft-left. Including my friends. Only around 20-25% were on the centre-right (although I suspect a few more were economically liberal, but did not advertise it)
Upon graduation, almost everyone moved to London. Except me. My "cohort" split itself fairly evenly between law, banking, consultancy, and academia. A couple joined the armed forces and one or two into engineering. A few (not many to be fair) also went into media/think-tanks and parliamentary research.
Both socially, and professionally, we still all mix with one another. I notice that other graduates of other Russell Group universities have more or less done the same thing. As time as moved on, views have diverged economically (we do get a bit of debate on welfare reform, tax cuts etc.) but there's a striking degree of consensus on other issues.
Those are: that's it's insane to even contemplate leaving the EU, immigration is unquestionably a good thing, a concern about AGW, and a general internationalist spirit and cultural social liberalism. They almost all detest and mock UKIP. The fastest way to get yourself ostracised from future gatherings would be to argue against gay marriage.
So - given the way our society is dominated by these types, and concentrated in London - is it any surprise our leaders view it as the centre-ground?
I think that's correct. My own circle of friends and acquaintances does include a higher proportion of people with socially conservative/Eurosceptic views, but that's probably the minority of people from my social background.
The French consulate seem to think so.. but then again...
"The consulate defines London as the city plus "the south eastern quadrant of the UK including Kent, Oxfordshire and maybe Sussex too".
This is quite a generous description of the London area - it includes Oxford, a city in its own right about 60 miles away from London. Kent and Sussex meanwhile, stretch right down to the English Channel"
But however many there are, I don't want to make a fuss about that.
@Currystar has started an argument with me on here before accusing me of hypocrisy because I don't believe in repatriation, so its hard to think I'm on a winner getting involved
The French Consulate understates for chauvinistic motives, we're looking at 500,000 French in London and 300,000 in the Home Counties;
"The Foreign Ministry recorded 1.6 million expats at the end of last year. But that figure only includes people who had registered at French consulates abroad. “So the real figure is twice as high,” says Hélène Charveriat, the delegate-general of the Union of French Citizens Abroad."
The ONS says less than 100,000, but like I say I don't really care what the number is.. it's irrelevant to the trap that @Currystar was trying to set anyway
On the 'centre ground'. This is interesting. I wonder if the belief in where it lies, according to our current political leadership, is partly a function of our lack of social mobility.
The majority (in some cases, the vast majority) of politicians, journalists, media producers, academics, think-tank researchers and NGO staffers we have today went to Russell Group universities; Oxbridge, Durham, Bristol, Nottingham, Exeter, Warwick, York, LSE, UCL and Imperial.
It is no coincidence that those same professions are dominated by graduates of those universities. It is also hardly surprising that the politicians think the centre-ground is pro-EU and relaxed on immigration: the reports they write, and the conversations they hold (both socially and professionally) are largely to or with one each other.
To take my example, I went to the University of Bristol. In my peer group, the vast majority were on the soft-left. Including my friends. Only around 20-25% were on the centre-right (although I suspect a few more were economically liberal, but did not advertise it)
Upon graduation, almost everyone moved to London. Except me. My "cohort" split itself fairly evenly between law, banking, consultancy, and academia. A couple joined the armed forces and one or two into engineering. A few (not many to be fair) also went into media/think-tanks and parliamentary research.
Both socially, and professionally, we still all mix with one another. I notice that other graduates of other Russell Group universities have more or less done the same thing. As time as moved on, views have diverged economically (we do get a bit of debate on welfare reform, tax cuts etc.) but there's a striking degree of consensus on other issues.
Those are: that's it's insane to even contemplate leaving the EU, immigration is unquestionably a good thing, a concern about AGW, and a general internationalist spirit and cultural social liberalism. They almost all detest and mock UKIP. The fastest way to get yourself ostracised from future gatherings would be to argue against gay marriage.
So - given the way our society is dominated by these types, and concentrated in London - is it any surprise our leaders view it as the centre-ground?
I think that's correct. My own circle of friends and acquaintances does include a higher proportion of people with socially conservative/Eurosceptic views, but that's probably the minority of people from my social background.
Even people from engineering and military backgrounds would significantly break up the dominant views of the consultant/banker/lawyer/academic set.
I should also add that the one social group it seems acceptable to sneer at is the traditional white working class. Words like stupid, thick, ignorant, bigoted and uneducated are often thrown in to the mix. There's also a thinly veiled classism sometimes, in a way that would never happen with gender, race or sexual orientation.
This isn't usually done in a crude or overtly bigoted way; it's just sneering and undertones. But it's very telling.
Very true, and I am sure it is one of the reasons why some people have such a hatred of UKIP - it is a party that is giving a voice to the traditional working classes.
I should also add that the one social group it seems acceptable to sneer at is the traditional white working class. Words like stupid, thick, ignorant, bigoted and uneducated are often thrown in to the mix. There's also a thinly veiled classism sometimes, in a way that would never happen with gender, race or sexual orientation.
This isn't usually done in a crude or overtly bigoted way; it's just sneering and undertones. But it's very telling.
Yes, tim often used the term "thick, white racists" to describe people who were upset about becoming a minority in their hometown
My friend has a business by Dalston Junction, on Balls Pond Road, and she has to come out in the morning and wash down her shopfront because these people are vomiting and peeing and all sorts. This is the other side of hipster Hackney.
Vomiting and urinating in public after a night out is something that has become far too acceptable in certain groups. It needs to be clamped down on.
I don't think that UKIP are Nazis. I do think that they are vile reactionary bandwagon-jumpers who if they ever got close to the levers of power would turn Britain into a diminished, sour backwater, and who thrive on fostering hatred of others rather than co-operation with and tolerance of others.
I would tactically vote against them if necessary for any of the main parties and would tactically vote against any of the main parties that entered into any kind of alliance with them as well.
This is exactly my position too. I've never voted Conservative in my life but would do so in order to keep out UKIP.
Criticism should be made of those of any religion (or none) who are routinely prejudiced and intolerant against gays and other groups. But your comment highlights the problem: it assumes that *all* Islam has a poor attitude to gay people (and therefore all Muslims), and has " Islamic reactionaries" in the same sentence, and then follows it up by saying that they preach that gays should be killed.
I know that's what you meant, but it's how it reads.
And I agree about ISIS. But the problem is people differentiating between ISIS and Islam, and Islam and people from Islamic countries, and then using ISIS to beat up on Islam and foreigners in general.
You say we need to differentiate, but I never hear from you, or those who espouse similar views, the terminology needed to make such a differentiation. All that's usually offered is a mealy mouthed reference to 'fundamentalism' or 'extremism' vs. 'moderate' Islam, which attempts to falsely conflate Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism. Why this happens is another debate, but the result is actually to undermine the user's own argument, because it portrays 'ISIS' and its ilk as on a continuum from the 'average' Muslim, just more extreme, or even a 'truer' Muslim. So this argument claims to be in defence of Islam, but its actual outcome is to subtly do the opposite.
This is odd to say the least, because in fact ISIS *are* within a very seperate and defined sphere of Islam, called Wahhabism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi_movement . However, even Blair in his philosophical musings on the 'true' Islam and the 'distorted' versions of it, never really touched on Wahhabism. And I believe that the reason for this is that to do so would be to openly challenge the source of Wahhabism, and the source of the spread of Sharia, and the source of radicalisation of Mosques, and the source of terror attacks, and the source of Syrian 'rebels', and the source of mediaval mistreatment of women -namely our allies Saudi Arabia, and to a lesser extent Qatar. To do so would raise far too many questions about our own foreign (and indeed domestic) policy. The plain reality is, we're buddied up with the wrong Muslims. That's why no-one is 'differentiating' between ISIS and Muslims in he way you call for.
" ...which attempts to falsely conflate Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism."
Why is it false?
As for your rant about Wahabism: I've mentioned plenty of times that Saudi Arabia is, to an extent, responsible for the problems we see, and has to be part of the solution. However Wahabism is not just the only problem, and 'curing' the Wahabism problem will not end Islamic fundamentalism.
Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) 17/10/2014 12:27 Great Carswell-Conservative showdown in Chamber right now. "Cons have credibility of a Greek Gvt bond", says Carswell. Cons rounding on him
"David Cameron begged to differ, distanced himself from Freud's remarks and ordered him to apologise."
I noticed that. Why not for once tell EdM that he's behaving like an opportunistic child and that he should grow up. It's the truth after all.
The Guardian writers would wet themselves but so what?
Surely the reason is that he was ambushed by Ed Miliband who cynically and dishonestly misquoted Lord Freud. Since Cameron wouldn't have had any reason to know what the actual exchange was, he could only respond on the basis of the distorted picture Miliband painted.
Frankly, it was an absolutely disgusting stunt by Labour and they should be ashamed of themselves.
What I don't recognise is that I and people like me are racist loons who want to live in the 1950s and attempts to cast me as such are counter productive.
So sharing a roasted black baby with me is off the cards then? I was hoping that if I came dressed in a gym slip this would be appropriate attire too. Damnit.
I feel rather sorry for Kipper voters in many respects - it must be hard to be hated more than a common or garden Tory. Funny ole world. I hope @MrJones returns to posting myself - IIRC he was a Kipper of ex-Labour stock.
I think Kippers bear it as a badge of pride - if they're drawing the opprobrium of 'LibLabCon' - especially the BBC - then it proves, to them, that they are doing something correctly.
I didn't see last nights QT - did Labour really put both their feet into their mouths regarding Freud and, if so, what did Dimbleby do to reduce the damage?
Drawing the opprobrium of 'LibLabCon' could mean you're doing something right, I suppose, but it could also mean that you are hopelessly wrong.
I should also add that the one social group it seems acceptable to sneer at is the traditional white working class. Words like stupid, thick, ignorant, bigoted and uneducated are often thrown in to the mix. There's also a thinly veiled classism sometimes, in a way that would never happen with gender, race or sexual orientation.
This isn't usually done in a crude or overtly bigoted way; it's just sneering and undertones. But it's very telling.
Balls to that.
I think you'll find that the social group that gets sneered at more than others is the so called Metropolitan elite.
Even I have been lumped into that class on here (along with JohnO, much to our amusement)
How many times have Kippers sneered at David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband for being out of touch, living in ivory towers, because they have been Oxbridge educated, particularly the two that did PPE.
Why should a good education automatically mean people are out of touch.
I should also add that the one social group it seems acceptable to sneer at is the traditional white working class. Words like stupid, thick, ignorant, bigoted and uneducated are often thrown in to the mix. There's also a thinly veiled classism sometimes, in a way that would never happen with gender, race or sexual orientation.
This isn't usually done in a crude or overtly bigoted way; it's just sneering and undertones. But it's very telling.
Yes, tim often used the term "thick, white racists" to describe people who were upset about becoming a minority in their hometown
My friend has a business by Dalston Junction, on Balls Pond Road, and she has to come out in the morning and wash down her shopfront because these people are vomiting and peeing and all sorts. This is the other side of hipster Hackney.
Vomiting and urinating in public after a night out is something that has become far too acceptable in certain groups. It needs to be clamped down on.
Well yes, but that's nothing to do with race. That's a problem of people getting too drunk to control themselves
"David Cameron begged to differ, distanced himself from Freud's remarks and ordered him to apologise."
I noticed that. Why not for once tell EdM that he's behaving like an opportunistic child and that he should grow up. It's the truth after all.
The Guardian writers would wet themselves but so what?
Probably because Cameron was ambushed by the question at PMQ and he did not have the full context at the time.
Also, by apologising completely, it has removed even the flimsiest of attacks Labour would have continued to use. The result is lots of people defending Freud and attacking Labour for using it.
Criticism should be made of those of any religion (or none) who are routinely prejudiced and intolerant against gays and other groups. But your comment highlights the problem: it assumes that *all* Islam has a poor attitude to gay people (and therefore all Muslims), and has " Islamic reactionaries" in the same sentence, and then follows it up by saying that they preach that gays should be killed.
I know that's what you meant, but it's how it reads.
And I agree about ISIS. But the problem is people differentiating between ISIS and Islam, and Islam and people from Islamic countries, and then using ISIS to beat up on Islam and foreigners in general.
SNIP
This is odd to say the least, because in fact ISIS *are* within a very seperate and defined sphere of Islam, called Wahhabism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi_movement . However, even Blair in his philosophical musings on the 'true' Islam and the 'distorted' versions of it, never really touched on Wahhabism. And I believe that the reason for this is that to do so would be to openly challenge the source of Wahhabism, and the source of the spread of Sharia, and the source of radicalisation of Mosques, and the source of terror attacks, and the source of Syrian 'rebels', and the source of mediaval mistreatment of women -namely our allies Saudi Arabia, and to a lesser extent Qatar. To do so would raise far too many questions about our own foreign (and indeed domestic) policy. The plain reality is, we're buddied up with the wrong Muslims. That's why no-one is 'differentiating' between ISIS and Muslims in the way you call for.
I find it amazing how similar some of our views are on some matters, and then directly opposite on adjacent issues. Your post here was completely correct, but can't you see how the desperateness of the anti-Assad population of Syria, and the lack of any support from the West, drives them into the hands of Saudi Arabia? Your suggest policy of us financing the Shia Assad so that he can repress the population still further, is surely going to make the Sunni population of the country even more anti-Western and extremist. It would just be doubling down on what we've done already by backing the Shia Maliki, who is highly sectarian.
Any Western policy in the Middle East needs to start with the understanding that the Sunnis and Shias (not to mention the Kurds) hate each other and don't want to be ruled by each other. We should have very early on in the post-2003 occupation made Iraq a federal country with the right for states to secede. We should have then backed Kurdistan and the Sunni triangle when they seceded. Had we done that, we could have had a relatively moderate Sunni group we could have supported against ISIS.
Syria really needs to be divided up too between a Sunni group in the East and a Christian/Alawite state in the West.
In answer to my overnight question, it is indeed the Tories who've lost vote-share at every single Westminster by-election in Great Britain since GE 2010. Even the LibDems made a very slight advance (+0.3%) at Oldham East!
I should also add that the one social group it seems acceptable to sneer at is the traditional white working class. Words like stupid, thick, ignorant, bigoted and uneducated are often thrown in to the mix. There's also a thinly veiled classism sometimes, in a way that would never happen with gender, race or sexual orientation.
This isn't usually done in a crude or overtly bigoted way; it's just sneering and undertones. But it's very telling.
Balls to that.
I think you'll find that the social group that gets sneered at more than others is the so called Metropolitan elite.
Even I have been lumped into that class on here (along with JohnO, much to our amusement)
How many times have Kippers sneered at David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband for being out of touch, living in ivory towers, because they have been Oxbridge educated, particularly the two that did PPE.
Why should a good education automatically mean people are out of touch.
I'd rather our potential/current PMs read a proper subject like chemistry rather than that PPE nonsense.
As time as moved on, views have diverged economically (we do get a bit of debate on welfare reform, tax cuts etc.) but there's a striking degree of consensus on other issues....it's insane to even contemplate leaving the EU, immigration is unquestionably a good thing, a concern about AGW, and a general internationalist spirit and cultural social liberalism.
That is in general why I couldn't be bothered to stay mates with anyone I met at university.
There was a prevailing nondescriptness of personality, a dull homogeneity of world view. Even those who departed from the typical (eg by being student Tories) were indistinguishable from other student Tories.
It was all a bit disappointing and from the start of my second year I was counting down to when I could leave.
I should also add that the one social group it seems acceptable to sneer at is the traditional white working class. Words like stupid, thick, ignorant, bigoted and uneducated are often thrown in to the mix. There's also a thinly veiled classism sometimes, in a way that would never happen with gender, race or sexual orientation.
This isn't usually done in a crude or overtly bigoted way; it's just sneering and undertones. But it's very telling.
Yes, tim often used the term "thick, white racists" to describe people who were upset about becoming a minority in their hometown
My friend has a business by Dalston Junction, on Balls Pond Road, and she has to come out in the morning and wash down her shopfront because these people are vomiting and peeing and all sorts. This is the other side of hipster Hackney.
Vomiting and urinating in public after a night out is something that has become far too acceptable in certain groups. It needs to be clamped down on.
Well yes, but that's nothing to do with race. That's a problem of people getting too drunk to control themselves
I should also add that the one social group it seems acceptable to sneer at is the traditional white working class. Words like stupid, thick, ignorant, bigoted and uneducated are often thrown in to the mix. There's also a thinly veiled classism sometimes, in a way that would never happen with gender, race or sexual orientation.
This isn't usually done in a crude or overtly bigoted way; it's just sneering and undertones. But it's very telling.
Yes, tim often used the term "thick, white racists" to describe people who were upset about becoming a minority in their hometown
My friend has a business by Dalston Junction, on Balls Pond Road, and she has to come out in the morning and wash down her shopfront because these people are vomiting and peeing and all sorts. This is the other side of hipster Hackney.
Vomiting and urinating in public after a night out is something that has become far too acceptable in certain groups. It needs to be clamped down on.
Well yes, but that's nothing to do with race. That's a problem of people getting too drunk to control themselves
I don't think race matters in any process of immigration. What is problem is a new residents with unpleasant cultural habits disrupting the traditional habits of a place. This certainly counts as that. I'd certainly be pretty angry at a load of new residents moving in and then having no respect for public property and the state of community spaces.
I should also add that the one social group it seems acceptable to sneer at is the traditional white working class. Words like stupid, thick, ignorant, bigoted and uneducated are often thrown in to the mix. There's also a thinly veiled classism sometimes, in a way that would never happen with gender, race or sexual orientation.
This isn't usually done in a crude or overtly bigoted way; it's just sneering and undertones. But it's very telling.
Balls to that.
I think you'll find that the social group that gets sneered at more than others is the so called Metropolitan elite.
Even I have been lumped into that class on here (along with JohnO, much to our amusement)
How many times have Kippers sneered at David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband for being out of touch, living in ivory towers, because they have been Oxbridge educated, particularly the two that did PPE.
Why should a good education automatically mean people are out of touch.
I'd rather our potential/current PMs read a proper subject like chemistry rather than that PPE nonsense.
Chemistry isn't a real science.
Physics is the only decent science.
But that's the snobbery I was talking about.
Would it acceptable for me to say, I'd much rather have a PM educated at one of the top unis rather than someone educated at a breeze block from poly/someone with no degree.
Fans on the board stuff - which sector is next power distribution, power generation, water supply, food retailers?
"Too often fans are treated like an after-thought as ticket prices are hiked-up, grounds relocated and clubs burdened with debt or the threat of bankruptcy. We have reached a tipping point."
Next there'll be wanting a referendum on whether clubs should go independent.
Fans on the board stuff - which sector is next power distribution, power generation, water supply, food retailers?
"Too often fans are treated like an after-thought as ticket prices are hiked-up, grounds relocated and clubs burdened with debt or the threat of bankruptcy. We have reached a tipping point."
Next there'll be wanting a referendum on whether clubs should go independent.
Have Labour got nothing better to do - what about some real policies?
If fans don't like the way clubs are run, they can talk with their wallets, and stay away from matches.
Empty seats will get the message across to owners, faster.
"David Cameron begged to differ, distanced himself from Freud's remarks and ordered him to apologise."
I noticed that. Why not for once tell EdM that he's behaving like an opportunistic child and that he should grow up. It's the truth after all.
The Guardian writers would wet themselves but so what?
Surely the reason is that he was ambushed by Ed Miliband who cynically and dishonestly misquoted Lord Freud. Since Cameron wouldn't have had any reason to know what the actual exchange was, he could only respond on the basis of the distorted picture Miliband painted.
Frankly, it was an absolutely disgusting stunt by Labour and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Yes it was, and the public have seen it for what it was
I should also add that the one social group it seems acceptable to sneer at is the traditional white working class. Words like stupid, thick, ignorant, bigoted and uneducated are often thrown in to the mix. There's also a thinly veiled classism sometimes, in a way that would never happen with gender, race or sexual orientation.
This isn't usually done in a crude or overtly bigoted way; it's just sneering and undertones. But it's very telling.
Balls to that.
I think you'll find that the social group that gets sneered at more than others is the so called Metropolitan elite.
Even I have been lumped into that class on here (along with JohnO, much to our amusement)
How many times have Kippers sneered at David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband for being out of touch, living in ivory towers, because they have been Oxbridge educated, particularly the two that did PPE.
Why should a good education automatically mean people are out of touch.
I'd rather our potential/current PMs read a proper subject like chemistry rather than that PPE nonsense.
I don't have a problem with PPE per se; it is just that far too many politicians, especially at the top, have it. If there are too many Etonians and union wallahs (delete according to bias) in politics, then there are also too many PPE graduates.
Fans on the board stuff - which sector is next power distribution, power generation, water supply, food retailers?
"Too often fans are treated like an after-thought as ticket prices are hiked-up, grounds relocated and clubs burdened with debt or the threat of bankruptcy. We have reached a tipping point."
Next there'll be wanting a referendum on whether clubs should go independent.
Hush you out of touch PB Tory, you have no idea what's going on out on the ground terraces
Fans on the board stuff - which sector is next power distribution, power generation, water supply, food retailers?
"Too often fans are treated like an after-thought as ticket prices are hiked-up, grounds relocated and clubs burdened with debt or the threat of bankruptcy. We have reached a tipping point."
Next there'll be wanting a referendum on whether clubs should go independent.
I think a demand for a full, independent, judge-led inquiry into the conduct of footer clubs would be more likely. At least in the first instance.
I should also add that the one social group it seems acceptable to sneer at is the traditional white working class. Words like stupid, thick, ignorant, bigoted and uneducated are often thrown in to the mix. There's also a thinly veiled classism sometimes, in a way that would never happen with gender, race or sexual orientation.
This isn't usually done in a crude or overtly bigoted way; it's just sneering and undertones. But it's very telling.
Balls to that.
I think you'll find that the social group that gets sneered at more than others is the so called Metropolitan elite.
Even I have been lumped into that class on here (along with JohnO, much to our amusement)
How many times have Kippers sneered at David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband for being out of touch, living in ivory towers, because they have been Oxbridge educated, particularly the two that did PPE.
Why should a good education automatically mean people are out of touch.
I'd rather our potential/current PMs read a proper subject like chemistry rather than that PPE nonsense.
There's nothing innately wrong with a PPE degree. The issue is when half the cabinet and shadow cabinet seem to come from just that one course.
I should also add that the one social group it seems acceptable to sneer at is the traditional white working class. Words like stupid, thick, ignorant, bigoted and uneducated are often thrown in to the mix. There's also a thinly veiled classism sometimes, in a way that would never happen with gender, race or sexual orientation.
This isn't usually done in a crude or overtly bigoted way; it's just sneering and undertones. But it's very telling.
Balls to that.
I think you'll find that the social group that gets sneered at more than others is the so called Metropolitan elite.
Even I have been lumped into that class on here (along with JohnO, much to our amusement)
How many times have Kippers sneered at David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband for being out of touch, living in ivory towers, because they have been Oxbridge educated, particularly the two that did PPE.
Why should a good education automatically mean people are out of touch.
I should also add that the one social group it seems acceptable to sneer at is the traditional white working class. Words like stupid, thick, ignorant, bigoted and uneducated are often thrown in to the mix. There's also a thinly veiled classism sometimes, in a way that would never happen with gender, race or sexual orientation.
This isn't usually done in a crude or overtly bigoted way; it's just sneering and undertones. But it's very telling.
Yes, tim often used the term "thick, white racists" to describe people who were upset about becoming a minority in their hometown
My friend has a business by Dalston Junction, on Balls Pond Road, and she has to come out in the morning and wash down her shopfront because these people are vomiting and peeing and all sorts. This is the other side of hipster Hackney.
Vomiting and urinating in public after a night out is something that has become far too acceptable in certain groups. It needs to be clamped down on.
Well yes, but that's nothing to do with race. That's a problem of people getting too drunk to control themselves
I don't think race matters in any process of immigration. What is problem is a new residents with unpleasant cultural habits disrupting the traditional habits of a place. This certainly counts as that. I'd certainly be pretty angry at a load of new residents moving in and then having no respect for public property and the state of community spaces.
I should also add that the one social group it seems acceptable to sneer at is the traditional white working class. Words like stupid, thick, ignorant, bigoted and uneducated are often thrown in to the mix. There's also a thinly veiled classism sometimes, in a way that would never happen with gender, race or sexual orientation.
This isn't usually done in a crude or overtly bigoted way; it's just sneering and undertones. But it's very telling.
Balls to that.
I think you'll find that the social group that gets sneered at more than others is the so called Metropolitan elite.
Even I have been lumped into that class on here (along with JohnO, much to our amusement)
How many times have Kippers sneered at David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband for being out of touch, living in ivory towers, because they have been Oxbridge educated, particularly the two that did PPE.
Why should a good education automatically mean people are out of touch.
I'd rather our potential/current PMs read a proper subject like chemistry rather than that PPE nonsense.
Chemistry isn't a real science.
Physics is the only decent science.
But that's the snobbery I was talking about.
Would it acceptable for me to say, I'd much rather have a PM educated at one of the top unis rather than someone educated at a breeze block from poly/someone with no degree.
Isn't physics just a version of applied Mathematics...
I should also add that the one social group it seems acceptable to sneer at is the traditional white working class. Words like stupid, thick, ignorant, bigoted and uneducated are often thrown in to the mix. There's also a thinly veiled classism sometimes, in a way that would never happen with gender, race or sexual orientation.
This isn't usually done in a crude or overtly bigoted way; it's just sneering and undertones. But it's very telling.
Yes, tim often used the term "thick, white racists" to describe people who were upset about becoming a minority in their hometown
My friend has a business by Dalston Junction, on Balls Pond Road, and she has to come out in the morning and wash down her shopfront because these people are vomiting and peeing and all sorts. This is the other side of hipster Hackney.
Vomiting and urinating in public after a night out is something that has become far too acceptable in certain groups. It needs to be clamped down on.
Well yes, but that's nothing to do with race. That's a problem of people getting too drunk to control themselves
I don't think race matters in any process of immigration. What is problem is a new residents with unpleasant cultural habits disrupting the traditional habits of a place. This certainly counts as that. I'd certainly be pretty angry at a load of new residents moving in and then having no respect for public property and the state of community spaces.
What are the traditional habits in Hackney then?
Not getting hammered and then spewing human waste products over the high street, apparently.
I find it amazing how similar some of our views are on some matters, and then directly opposite on adjacent issues. Your post here was completely correct, but can't you see how the desperateness of the anti-Assad population of Syria, and the lack of any support from the West, drives them into the hands of Saudi Arabia? Your suggest policy of us financing the Shia Assad so that he can repress the population still further, is surely going to make the Sunni population of the country even more anti-Western and extremist. It would just be doubling down on what we've done already by backing the Shia Maliki, who is highly sectarian.
Any Western policy in the Middle East needs to start with the understanding that the Sunnis and Shias (not to mention the Kurds) hate each other and don't want to be ruled by each other. We should have very early on in the post-2003 occupation made Iraq a federal country with the right for states to secede. We should have then backed Kurdistan and the Sunni triangle when they seceded. Had we done that, we could have had a relatively moderate Sunni group we could have supported against ISIS.
Syria really needs to be divided up too between a Sunni group in the East and a Christian/Alawite state in the West.
Contrary to our conversation this morning, can I say I pretty much agree with that second and third paragraph. Although the Kurdistan question alone is problematic.
The ME is a mess, and I can't see any easy solutions, sadly.
@Sean Fear - there are fully four of my friends like that. All Conservative supporters, whose principles are similar to mine. A fifth is now UKIP. But that's out of a couple of dozen.
I should also add that the one social group it seems acceptable to sneer at is the traditional white working class. Words like stupid, thick, ignorant, bigoted and uneducated are often thrown in to the mix. There's also a thinly veiled classism sometimes, in a way that would never happen with gender, race or sexual orientation.
This isn't usually done in a crude or overtly bigoted way; it's just sneering and undertones. But it's very telling.
Balls to that.
I think you'll find that the social group that gets sneered at more than others is the so called Metropolitan elite.
Even I have been lumped into that class on here (along with JohnO, much to our amusement)
How many times have Kippers sneered at David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband for being out of touch, living in ivory towers, because they have been Oxbridge educated, particularly the two that did PPE.
Why should a good education automatically mean people are out of touch.
It doesn't mean they are automatically. I judge the three of them as out of touch because of their stated views and actions.
I should also add that the one social group it seems acceptable to sneer at is the traditional white working class. Words like stupid, thick, ignorant, bigoted and uneducated are often thrown in to the mix. There's also a thinly veiled classism sometimes, in a way that would never happen with gender, race or sexual orientation.
This isn't usually done in a crude or overtly bigoted way; it's just sneering and undertones. But it's very telling.
Balls to that.
I think you'll find that the social group that gets sneered at more than others is the so called Metropolitan elite.
Even I have been lumped into that class on here (along with JohnO, much to our amusement)
How many times have Kippers sneered at David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband for being out of touch, living in ivory towers, because they have been Oxbridge educated, particularly the two that did PPE.
Why should a good education automatically mean people are out of touch.
It shouldn't and it doesn't.
I haven't sneered at anyone for anything, I hate inverse snobbery, it's as bad as snobbery.
I do think the three people you mention are out if touch though. I don't think other people who have the same job as them, and the same qualifications are though. It's just that they are.
In a other post you say is it wrong to prefer a person with a top degree from a leading Uni etc over one without or from a breeze block, and I'd say that's not wrong at all it's your preference
" ...which attempts to falsely conflate Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism."
Why is it false?
As for your rant about Wahabism: I've mentioned plenty of times that Saudi Arabia is, to an extent, responsible for the problems we see, and has to be part of the solution. However Wahabism is not just the only problem, and 'curing' the Wahabism problem will not end Islamic fundamentalism.
It is self-evidently false because of empirical fact. According to the news this morning, our police are straining under the effort of thwarting hundreds of terror attacks due to the situation in the Middle East. They aren't thwarting Christian-inspired terror attacks are they? Far from aggressors, Christians worldwide these days are increasingly a horribly persecuted minority, a fact acknowledged (though not acted upon) by everyone from Cameron to Prince Charles.
Many of the Muslims of Iran are what we would call fundamentalists. We may find their views (and justice system) repugnant, but the fact is they have not invaded anywhere since the revolution. I stand to be corrected, but I simply do not perceive a major 'Shia' problem as far as the UK is concerned.
I accept what you say but surely he would have assumed that Ed was making things up - No one expects the PM to have listened to every reply made by every single Conservative spokesman in the UK? After all Ed can't even remember his own speeches
And if he's asked about his favourite biscuit or whether he watches East Enders, just tell them to mind their own business. I'd respect Ed too if he said that.
I should also add that the one social group it seems acceptable to sneer at is the traditional white working class. Words like stupid, thick, ignorant, bigoted and uneducated are often thrown in to the mix. There's also a thinly veiled classism sometimes, in a way that would never happen with gender, race or sexual orientation.
This isn't usually done in a crude or overtly bigoted way; it's just sneering and undertones. But it's very telling.
Yes, tim often used the term "thick, white racists" to describe people who were upset about becoming a minority in their hometown
My friend has a business by Dalston Junction, on Balls Pond Road, and she has to come out in the morning and wash down her shopfront because these people are vomiting and peeing and all sorts. This is the other side of hipster Hackney.
Vomiting and urinating in public after a night out is something that has become far too acceptable in certain groups. It needs to be clamped down on.
Well yes, but that's nothing to do with race. That's a problem of people getting too drunk to control themselves
I don't think race matters in any process of immigration. What is problem is a new residents with unpleasant cultural habits disrupting the traditional habits of a place. This certainly counts as that. I'd certainly be pretty angry at a load of new residents moving in and then having no respect for public property and the state of community spaces.
What are the traditional habits in Hackney then?
Not getting hammered and then spewing human waste products over the high street, apparently.
I should also add that the one social group it seems acceptable to sneer at is the traditional white working class. Words like stupid, thick, ignorant, bigoted and uneducated are often thrown in to the mix. There's also a thinly veiled classism sometimes, in a way that would never happen with gender, race or sexual orientation. This isn't usually done in a crude or overtly bigoted way; it's just sneering and undertones. But it's very telling.
It is very deep-rooted and can be seen in Labour's founders. Sidney and Beatrice Webb said ‘With regard to certain sections of the population [the “unemployable”], this unemployment is not a mark of social disease, but actually of social health’. Sidney Webb said in 1912: ‘of all ways of dealing with these unfortunate parasites, the most ruinous to the community is to allow them unrestrainedly to compete as wage earners’.
Guido is from memory a Libertarian at heart and generally hates all politicians equally. A lot of us are from the olden days.
I miss Devil's Kitchen blog - he was super. It used to be great fun and very sharp. Shame he made a Charlie of himself by appearing on a prog with Andrew Neil and was totally skewered. Obnoxio's use of profanities as punctuation got too wearing, he did make some very good points though. I used to know Annaracoon quite well. She's a very interesting lady.
It's not the anti-PC that I dislike, nor toilet humour that I mind [you should see me when I'm off on one] - it's the undercurrent in much of it = being anti-gay and anti quite a few other things too when they're on their hobby-horses.
The only two I pay any attention to are Frank Fisher and LeftyThinker who's hilarious.
I assume that the posters you have an issue with are similar to the Guido posters -very anti-PC, very macho in style, lots of black/schoolboy humour, lots of anger. The way I see it, these were Tories -Guido used to be quite a Tory place, as did the DT I guess, but have been thoroughly disillusioned by Cameron and have gone UKIP.
I suppose what you get from their posts and the allowances you make for their aggressive posting style depends on how aligned you are with their political outlook. I quite like it when a DT columnist has written the sort of craven and illogical war-drum peice 'We must attack Russia or we'll all be eating Borscht soon' they tend to specialise in these days, and it gets comprehensively (and rudely) rubbished in the comments. Hence them not allowing comments when they know they've written flagrant rubbish on Syria or the like any more. I can see how others wouldn't though.
It's truly amazing how many of the New Right champions of the white working class on here given no indication of having any friends from that social group never mind being WWC themselves.
I get routinely derided on here for being part of the Lefty Metropolitan Elite, whatever that may be. The irony of course that I am from a WWC family unlike many of the soothsayers on PB.
So do I! Amazing but not necessarily a bad thing. Dissent is good.
I think why I diverge from you is based on two things -
1. I believe different things about current events. I believe that Assad is a dictator who deals harshly with threats to his Government. But I also believe, and I am happy to trot out the evidence (as I see it), that Syria is first and foremost 'Syrian', and that they do not wish to be sliced up from outside along crudely sectarian lines. Assad's army (for example) has huge numbers of Sunnis, and if they deserted, as they have been encouraged to do all this time, the Assad regime would not still be in power. Syrians simply do not want a foreign backed insurgency handing them an 'interim' Government chosen by the US -they appreciate that there are problems with Assad's rule, but they want a solution from inside Syria, as indeed was happening (and has continued) before the conflict started in earnest.
Don't forget, Britain and the other former colonial powers have often been accused of setting 'tribes' against each other to preserve their rule -for example Belgium (is it Belgium?) with the Hootoos and Tutsis in Rwanda. It is with a lot of justification (with evidence from many sources including foreign policy think tank documents) that current American policy is to Balkanise the ME in a similar way -regardless of the actual wishes of the populace.
2. Reason (from my POV) is that our policial 'blind spots' are different. I still have them. I still love Britain and try to see things from our side. It would appear one of yours is your Atlanticism. I see why you support the US as a great democracy; it does you great credit, but I think it blinds you from some things America does that are indefensible.
I think I was at art school with the only Tory in the whole place. He was called Simon and was a cross between a very intense poet and a hardcore swot.
I swear some even pretended to be gay just to fit in into LeftyArtyFartyLand.
My Hell will be to end up back there when I'm dead.
On the 'centre ground'. This is interesting. I wonder if the belief in where it lies, according to our current political leadership, is partly a function of our lack of social mobility.
The majority (in some cases, the vast majority) of politicians, journalists, media producers, academics, think-tank researchers and NGO staffers we have today went to Russell Group universities; Oxbridge, Durham, Bristol, Nottingham, Exeter, Warwick, York, LSE, UCL and Imperial.
It is no coincidence that those same professions are dominated by graduates of those universities. It is also hardly surprising that the politicians think the centre-ground is pro-EU and relaxed on immigration: the reports they write, and the conversations they hold (both socially and professionally) are largely to or with one each other.
To take my example, I went to the University of Bristol. In my peer group, the vast majority were on the soft-left. Including my friends. Only around 20-25% were on the centre-right (although I suspect a few more were economically liberal, but did not advertise it)
Upon graduation, almost everyone moved to London. Except me. My "cohort" split itself fairly evenly between law, banking, consultancy, and academia. A couple joined the armed forces and one or two into engineering. A few (not many to be fair) also went into media/think-tanks and parliamentary research.
Both socially, and professionally, we still all mix with one another. I notice that other graduates of other Russell Group universities have more or less done the same thing. As time as moved on, views have diverged economically (we do get a bit of debate on welfare reform, tax cuts etc.) but there's a striking degree of consensus on other issues.
Those are: that's it's insane to even contemplate leaving the EU, immigration is unquestionably a good thing, a concern about AGW, and a general internationalist spirit and cultural social liberalism. They almost all detest and mock UKIP. The fastest way to get yourself ostracised from future gatherings would be to argue against gay marriage.
So - given the way our society is dominated by these types, and concentrated in London - is it any surprise our leaders view it as the centre-ground?
I think that's correct. My own circle of friends and acquaintances does include a higher proportion of people with socially conservative/Eurosceptic views, but that's probably the minority of people from my social background.
Comments
I didn't see last nights QT - did Labour really put both their feet into their mouths regarding Freud and, if so, what did Dimbleby do to reduce the damage?
Eagle regurgitated the synthetic outage at Freud, and more than one audience member called her out on it while the rest of them booed her
Not often you hear an Labour MP booed and jeered to loud applause on QT..!
I didn't see last nights QT - did Labour really put both their feet into their mouths regarding Freud and, if so, what did Dimbleby do to reduce the damage?
I think that most UKIP members do indeed regard these criticisms as ritual abuse from partisans of the three main parties. Often it is, although some people clearly have (in my view quite misplaced) fears about UKIP.
So what would he say about this I wonder
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/hackney-heroine-london-belongs-to-all-of-us-not-just-those-who-can-pay-5-for-a-cappuccino-9651858.html
"David Cameron begged to differ, distanced himself from Freud's remarks and ordered him to apologise."
I noticed that. Why not for once tell EdM that he's behaving like an opportunistic child and that he should grow up. It's the truth after all.
The Guardian writers would wet themselves but so what?
My friend has a business by Dalston Junction, on Balls Pond Road, and she has to come out in the morning and wash down her shopfront because these people are vomiting and peeing and all sorts. This is the other side of hipster Hackney.
Vomiting and urinating in public after a night out is something that has become far too acceptable in certain groups. It needs to be clamped down on.
Why is it false?
As for your rant about Wahabism: I've mentioned plenty of times that Saudi Arabia is, to an extent, responsible for the problems we see, and has to be part of the solution. However Wahabism is not just the only problem, and 'curing' the Wahabism problem will not end Islamic fundamentalism.
Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ)
17/10/2014 12:27
Great Carswell-Conservative showdown in Chamber right now. "Cons have credibility of a Greek Gvt bond", says Carswell. Cons rounding on him
And if you're going down that road you'd better start taxing runners the max VED on their trainers ^_~
Frankly, it was an absolutely disgusting stunt by Labour and they should be ashamed of themselves.
I didn't see last nights QT - did Labour really put both their feet into their mouths regarding Freud and, if so, what did Dimbleby do to reduce the damage?
Drawing the opprobrium of 'LibLabCon' could mean you're doing something right, I suppose, but it could also mean that you are hopelessly wrong.
I think you'll find that the social group that gets sneered at more than others is the so called Metropolitan elite.
Even I have been lumped into that class on here (along with JohnO, much to our amusement)
How many times have Kippers sneered at David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband for being out of touch, living in ivory towers, because they have been Oxbridge educated, particularly the two that did PPE.
Why should a good education automatically mean people are out of touch.
Also, by apologising completely, it has removed even the flimsiest of attacks Labour would have continued to use. The result is lots of people defending Freud and attacking Labour for using it.
Any Western policy in the Middle East needs to start with the understanding that the Sunnis and Shias (not to mention the Kurds) hate each other and don't want to be ruled by each other. We should have very early on in the post-2003 occupation made Iraq a federal country with the right for states to secede. We should have then backed Kurdistan and the Sunni triangle when they seceded. Had we done that, we could have had a relatively moderate Sunni group we could have supported against ISIS.
Syria really needs to be divided up too between a Sunni group in the East and a Christian/Alawite state in the West.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29652317
Fans on the board stuff - which sector is next power distribution, power generation, water supply, food retailers?
There was a prevailing nondescriptness of personality, a dull homogeneity of world view. Even those who departed from the typical (eg by being student Tories) were indistinguishable from other student Tories.
It was all a bit disappointing and from the start of my second year I was counting down to when I could leave.
Physics is the only decent science.
But that's the snobbery I was talking about.
Would it acceptable for me to say, I'd much rather have a PM educated at one of the top unis rather than someone educated at a breeze block from poly/someone with no degree.
Next there'll be wanting a referendum on whether clubs should go independent.
If fans don't like the way clubs are run, they can talk with their wallets, and stay away from matches.
Empty seats will get the message across to owners, faster.
How the Tories plan to attack Labour and Ukip as one
Both parties will be portrayed as unserious and lacking in credibility.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/10/how-tories-plan-attack-labour-and-ukip-one
The ME is a mess, and I can't see any easy solutions, sadly.
@isam/HurstLlama - thanks.
@Sean Fear - there are fully four of my friends like that. All Conservative supporters, whose principles are similar to mine. A fifth is now UKIP. But that's out of a couple of dozen.
I haven't sneered at anyone for anything, I hate inverse snobbery, it's as bad as snobbery.
I do think the three people you mention are out if touch though. I don't think other people who have the same job as them, and the same qualifications are though. It's just that they are.
In a other post you say is it wrong to prefer a person with a top degree from a leading Uni etc over one without or from a breeze block, and I'd say that's not wrong at all it's your preference
Many of the Muslims of Iran are what we would call fundamentalists. We may find their views (and justice system) repugnant, but the fact is they have not invaded anywhere since the revolution. I stand to be corrected, but I simply do not perceive a major 'Shia' problem as far as the UK is concerned.
I accept what you say but surely he would have assumed that Ed was making things up - No one expects the PM to have listened to every reply made by every single Conservative spokesman in the UK? After all Ed can't even remember his own speeches
And if he's asked about his favourite biscuit or whether he watches East Enders, just tell them to mind their own business. I'd respect Ed too if he said that.
"unemployable" "unfortunate parasites"
I miss Devil's Kitchen blog - he was super. It used to be great fun and very sharp. Shame he made a Charlie of himself by appearing on a prog with Andrew Neil and was totally skewered. Obnoxio's use of profanities as punctuation got too wearing, he did make some very good points though. I used to know Annaracoon quite well. She's a very interesting lady.
It's not the anti-PC that I dislike, nor toilet humour that I mind [you should see me when I'm off on one] - it's the undercurrent in much of it = being anti-gay and anti quite a few other things too when they're on their hobby-horses.
The only two I pay any attention to are Frank Fisher and LeftyThinker who's hilarious.
I get routinely derided on here for being part of the Lefty Metropolitan Elite, whatever that may be. The irony of course that I am from a WWC family unlike many of the soothsayers on PB.
So do I! Amazing but not necessarily a bad thing. Dissent is good.
I think why I diverge from you is based on two things -
1. I believe different things about current events. I believe that Assad is a dictator who deals harshly with threats to his Government. But I also believe, and I am happy to trot out the evidence (as I see it), that Syria is first and foremost 'Syrian', and that they do not wish to be sliced up from outside along crudely sectarian lines. Assad's army (for example) has huge numbers of Sunnis, and if they deserted, as they have been encouraged to do all this time, the Assad regime would not still be in power. Syrians simply do not want a foreign backed insurgency handing them an 'interim' Government chosen by the US -they appreciate that there are problems with Assad's rule, but they want a solution from inside Syria, as indeed was happening (and has continued) before the conflict started in earnest.
Don't forget, Britain and the other former colonial powers have often been accused of setting 'tribes' against each other to preserve their rule -for example Belgium (is it Belgium?) with the Hootoos and Tutsis in Rwanda. It is with a lot of justification (with evidence from many sources including foreign policy think tank documents) that current American policy is to Balkanise the ME in a similar way -regardless of the actual wishes of the populace.
2. Reason (from my POV) is that our policial 'blind spots' are different. I still have them. I still love Britain and try to see things from our side. It would appear one of yours is your Atlanticism. I see why you support the US as a great democracy; it does you great credit, but I think it blinds you from some things America does that are indefensible.
I swear some even pretended to be gay just to fit in into LeftyArtyFartyLand.
My Hell will be to end up back there when I'm dead.