O/T, saw Foxcatcher. Steve Carrell as Du Pont in with a real shout for the Oscar for the Best Male Actor, but overall thought the film excrutiatingly slow, and way overloaded on the homo-eroticism around wrestling. Given the later life of Du Pont was dominated by him being utterly bat-shit crazy, the film strangely chooses to depict none of the well-catalogued manifestations of his paranoia. Also Calvary, which was more sombre than In Bruges and The Guard, but a towering performance again from Brendan Gleeson. I also caught up with the LEGO Movie. Which confirmed one thing. Everything is awesome.
Isn't this the problem with biography movies and true story movies? They have to be dramatised and have to fit 90 - 120 minutes. And if the story is complex it has to be synthesised down. Zulu got many personal details totally wrong but it still told the true story. Its hard to think of a more dramatic event, but it still had to change things to dramatise it.
You are surely not saying that Cam, the man vilified many times over, who is like a wet fish in wetland, Mr U-Turn himself, will be able to persuade the great people of these Isles to stay if they don't want to?
Really? He has that much power?
Or do you think that while you are able to look at the issues critically and make your own mind up, regardless of what the politicians say, perhaps the great unwashed are not able to do so?
You Tories really are thick.
We have said this often before and it remains true. With the leaders of the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour all campaigning to remain in the EU and the PM misrepresenting any concessions he has 'gained' from the EU it will be a very difficult task to win an Out result. With Camsron gone that task becomes much easier. There will be a vote at some time over the next couple of Parliaments on remaining in the EU because the dynamics of the EU with the move towards ever closer union will force it. My aim is to make sure that when that vote happens, the Out side win. Yours is apparently to make sure that the whole issue is nullified for the sake of your beloved party.
As always it comes back to a matter of principles. Or lack of them in the case of the Tories.
No, I am admitting there is no possible route for an IN/OUT referendum in the next parliament.
Of course there is. It just requires a small proportion of those currently telling pollsters they'll vote UKIP to vote Conservative, and Bob's your uncle.
You know that Kipper councillor that was dumped by the party because she said something to the BBC that was really shocking but no one would say what it was.
Well the Times has found out what she said.
A Ukip councillor was expelled from the party for allegedly saying that she had a problem with “negroes” because there was “something about their faces,” The Times can reveal.
Rozanne Duncan was kicked out last month after making “jaw-dropping” remarks to a BBC documentary-maker, but both the party and the broadcaster declined to reveal what she had said.
The difference between this one and the UKIP case is that UKIP kicked out the offender for not representing the views, while the Tories are happy to hang on to this one.
Slightly on topic... I watched Burnham being trounced yet again at UQ yesterday...why does this leadership hopeful always look as if he is sitting in wet underpants....
Every Labour politician is always being trounced in your fantasy world, Richard.
Burnham has scored some useful hits in the last few days. The NHS crisis is a systemic response to austerity biting all over the shop. Council cuts in particular, but also resources available to carers have clearly impacted on our capacity to care for the old and infirm at home. Et voila... Hospitals and in particular A&E overstretched.
And your answer to this dilemma bearing in mind the lack of available money is ...
Or do you think that while you are able to look at the issues critically and make your own mind up, regardless of what the politicians say, perhaps the great unwashed are not able to do so?
How many people vote for the donkey in the red or blue rosette ? do you find it hard to believe that people will vote for the donkey that says it has repatriated a range of important powers (ie tinsel) for Britain, and stands on the stage next to his friends in business and the media telling everyone what a good deal it is, how it works for Britian, and how they should vote for it. I mean no one called say Heath did pretty much exactly that in the 70s, no siree.
Ah so I was right. You are able to discern the nuances and arguments of the in/out debate. You just fear for those less intellectually able than you, poor things, who are stumped by the whole thing.
Thank goodness you are around to help and guide them through their predicament to the right answer.
So before negotiations have even started, out of these 14 measures, Cameron has given up entirely on 11 of them, and has retreated to half way demands on 2 more.
Why do you think that?
Have a look at Nick's link below. One of the most notable demands for repatriation was for car seat regulations. Even more embarrassing was Cameron restricting his demands for immigration changes to what Merkel had already signed off on:
Read in the Metro that there was a lot of hard talking on the EU renegotiation between Cameron and Merkel yesterday.
The journalist was right: all the hard talking was done by Merkel.
What is hard about saying "nein"?
Should have asked how many changes can we have to the EU rules, would have given us 9 areas to have a go at.
If euro-sceptics were logical, which of course they aren't, they would love every minute of Cam getting a shellacking by Merkel. Every ridiculously trivial regulation set to be repatriated. Every failure to achieve a stated aim.
And then vote Cons. To get the referendum they so desperately want. And then vote: "NO".
But of course the world does not work in a logical way.
More to the point, euro-sceptics don't work in a logical way. They would rather we had a Government that refuses them a vote on an early IN/OUT referendum and forges ever more intractible ties to Brussels, than work to elect the one party in with a chance to give them what they say they crave.
If you mean the Tories, then they don't have a chance to give us a referendum. They won't win a majority, and no potential coalition partners will allow a referendum.
No, I am admitting there is no possible route for an IN/OUT referendum in the next parliament.
Of course there is. It just requires a small proportion of those currently telling pollsters they'll vote UKIP to vote Conservative, and Bob's your uncle.
How many of UKIP's 15% do you think would ever return to the Tories, as opposed to being NOTA, DK, DNV, Blue Labour etc ?
As I might have remarked a few times before, the Tories insulting their right wing, and most of their traditional vote, and then crying because they are low in the polls does sound rather unfortunate.
Slightly on topic... I watched Burnham being trounced yet again at UQ yesterday...why does this leadership hopeful always look as if he is sitting in wet underpants....
Every Labour politician is always being trounced in your fantasy world, Richard.
Burnham has scored some useful hits in the last few days. The NHS crisis is a systemic response to austerity biting all over the shop. Council cuts in particular, but also resources available to carers have clearly impacted on our capacity to care for the old and infirm at home. Et voila... Hospitals and in particular A&E overstretched.
And your answer to this dilemma bearing in mind the lack of available money is ...
And the additional cuts that a Labour administration would have imposed.
You know that Kipper councillor that was dumped by the party because she said something to the BBC that was really shocking but no one would say what it was.
Well the Times has found out what she said.
A Ukip councillor was expelled from the party for allegedly saying that she had a problem with “negroes” because there was “something about their faces,” The Times can reveal.
Rozanne Duncan was kicked out last month after making “jaw-dropping” remarks to a BBC documentary-maker, but both the party and the broadcaster declined to reveal what she had said.
The difference between this one and the UKIP case is that UKIP kicked out the offender for not representing the views, while the Tories are happy to hang on to this one.
Slightly on topic... I watched Burnham being trounced yet again at UQ yesterday...why does this leadership hopeful always look as if he is sitting in wet underpants....
Every Labour politician is always being trounced in your fantasy world, Richard.
Burnham has scored some useful hits in the last few days. The NHS crisis is a systemic response to austerity biting all over the shop. Council cuts in particular, but also resources available to carers have clearly impacted on our capacity to care for the old and infirm at home. Et voila... Hospitals and in particular A&E overstretched.
And your answer to this dilemma bearing in mind the lack of available money is ...
And the additional cuts that a Labour administration would have imposed.
Indeed, and the extra additional cuts they would have to impose to pay for cash they will inevitably piss up the wall on various bits of gerrymandering or social engineering (as they always do).
Have a look at Nick's link below. One of the most notable demands for repatriation was for car seat regulations. "
But that is not a list of Cameron's renegotiation aims. It's a background document examining in great detail what the EU does and does not do in terms of setting UK regulations and policy.
You know that Kipper councillor that was dumped by the party because she said something to the BBC that was really shocking but no one would say what it was.
Well the Times has found out what she said.
A Ukip councillor was expelled from the party for allegedly saying that she had a problem with “negroes” because there was “something about their faces,” The Times can reveal.
Rozanne Duncan was kicked out last month after making “jaw-dropping” remarks to a BBC documentary-maker, but both the party and the broadcaster declined to reveal what she had said.
The difference between this one and the UKIP case is that UKIP kicked out the offender for not representing the views, while the Tories are happy to hang on to this one.
Mr. Punter, a great likelihood, but not a certainty. Still got a Greek election and potential eurowoe, the ongoing French situation (which may get worse) and any other black swan, as well as the debates, if they happen.
Edited extra bit: on the French situation, there's reportedly been an explosion in a kebab shop adjoining a mosque.
Yes of course, Morris. Nothing is a certainty, but I was in a hurry this morning and lacked time for the more carefully articulated view.
I'd say NOM is about a 90% probability and should therefore be about 1/9 rather than the 4/9 currently available. I'm glad to see however that others, including the Esteemed Dr Palmer, believe that even this more moderate view overstates NOM's likelihood.
Keep up the good work, Nick. Somebody has to hold up the price for me. ;-)
You are surely not saying that Cam, the man vilified many times over, who is like a wet fish in wetland, Mr U-Turn himself, will be able to persuade the great people of these Isles to stay if they don't want to?
Really? He has that much power?
Or do you think that while you are able to look at the issues critically and make your own mind up, regardless of what the politicians say, perhaps the great unwashed are not able to do so?
You Tories really are thick.
We have said this often before and it remains true. With the leaders of the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour all campaigning to remain in the EU and the PM misrepresenting any concessions he has 'gained' from the EU it will be a very difficult task to win an Out result. With Camsron gone that task becomes much easier. There will be a vote at some time over the next couple of Parliaments on remaining in the EU because the dynamics of the EU with the move towards ever closer union will force it. My aim is to make sure that when that vote happens, the Out side win. Yours is apparently to make sure that the whole issue is nullified for the sake of your beloved party.
As always it comes back to a matter of principles. Or lack of them in the case of the Tories.
You Kippers really are arrogant.
Put simply: you don't trust the electorate to deliver the "right" answer.
Leftism at its best.
Pathetic also - that's one of the reasons I am a "thick" Tory: we prefer to trust the electorate.
How many of UKIP's 15% do you think would ever return to the Tories, as opposed to being NOTA, DK, DNV, Blue Labour etc ?
That's up to them. If they want the possibility of the UK leaving the EU, they can vote Conservative. I don't presume to tell them how to vote, all I'm doing is pointing out the option available to them. Socrates' argument seems to be entirely circular, that the Conservatives can't get a majority because not enough people will vote for them, therefore the large proportion of the electorate who claim they want a referendum shouldn't vote for them, therefore the Conservatives can't get a majority,
No, I am admitting there is no possible route for an IN/OUT referendum in the next parliament.
Of course there is. It just requires a small proportion of those currently telling pollsters they'll vote UKIP to vote Conservative, and Bob's your uncle.
How many of UKIP's 15% do you think would ever return to the Tories, as opposed to being NOTA, DK, DNV, Blue Labour etc ?
As I might have remarked a few times before, the Tories insulting their right wing, and most of their traditional vote, and then crying because they are low in the polls does sound rather unfortunate.
If you want the UK to leave EU, you vote for the party that supports it. If you support independence for Scotland, you vote for the party that supports it. If you want a United Ireland, you vote for the parties that support it.
Or do you think that while you are able to look at the issues critically and make your own mind up, regardless of what the politicians say, perhaps the great unwashed are not able to do so?
How many people vote for the donkey in the red or blue rosette ? do you find it hard to believe that people will vote for the donkey that says it has repatriated a range of important powers (ie tinsel) for Britain, and stands on the stage next to his friends in business and the media telling everyone what a good deal it is, how it works for Britian, and how they should vote for it. I mean no one called say Heath did pretty much exactly that in the 70s, no siree.
Ah so I was right. You are able to discern the nuances and arguments of the in/out debate. You just fear for those less intellectually able than you, poor things, who are stumped by the whole thing.
Thank goodness you are around to help and guide them through their predicament to the right answer.
No you were wrong... If there are people to be patronised and condescended to, I am not worthy to carry your briefcase. In any case I am sure Heath managed to get all sorts of clever people to believe him as well, that was his job after all.
Mr. Punter, a great likelihood, but not a certainty. Still got a Greek election and potential eurowoe, the ongoing French situation (which may get worse) and any other black swan, as well as the debates, if they happen.
Edited extra bit: on the French situation, there's reportedly been an explosion in a kebab shop adjoining a mosque.
Yes of course, Morris. Nothing is a certainty, but I was in a hurry this morning and lacked time for the more carefully articulated view.
I'd say NOM is about a 90% probability and should therefore be about 1/9 rather than the 4/9 currently available. I'm glad to see however that others, including the Esteemed Dr Palmer, believe that even this more moderate view overstates NOM's likelihood.
Keep up the good work, Nick. Somebody has to hold up the price for me. ;-)
1/9 sounds about right to me. Maybe just a touch short. 1/6 maybe.
There's nothing in what's happening in Scotland or in the numerous constituency polls to suggest that either main party is anywhere near 326 seats or has a particularly plausible route to it.
You make some reasonable points but you miss the major one.
Despite Nick P's protestations, the question we were asked in 1975 was do you want to stay in the Common Market, not do you want to stay in the Common Market with a view to proceeding to Political Union. Had we been asked the true question, the answer would have been a resounding No.
So politicians bide their time, gradually do it piecemeal and eventually end up with the result they wanted.
Labour were ambivalent until they realised they could achieve many of their aims via Europe. For politicians in general, European bureaucracy enhances their careers.
Am I cynical? Yes, but I'm old and have seen these things happen before.
Do I trust politicians? Some, but these are the one who do not make progress in their party.
Frank Field for instance.
To climb the greasy pole, you lie and dissemble and have a streak of ruthlessness.
Let's understand what this right not to be offended or to have your religion offended actually means. It it presented - and Iqbal Sacranie was at it again last night on Newsnight - as a defensive act by a victim who was hurt and upset. And it is quite clever to present it in this way because normal decent people do not want (generally) to go round hurting others.
But it is fundamentally wrong. it is an aggressive act. What people like Sacranie are doing is saying that in Islam it is wrong to draw Mohammed. Fine - for Muslims. But by saying that they are offended when non-Muslims do it they are effectively - and this is an act of aggression - saying that non-Muslims too must abide by this particular Islamic tenet.
And to that I say no.
Whether you choose to be offended or, if offended, to react is your own affair. You have a choice. But do not presume to impose your beliefs on others because that is what you are doing by saying that I cannot draw him or write about him or whatever other than in the manner you dictate.
Muslims are free to practise their faith. But what they cannot - must not - be allowed to do is to impose it on others.
We need to stop seeing those who use this "I am offended" canard as victims and treat them as the passive-aggressors that they really are.
The fact is that muslims are going to be offended by images that mock their prophet.. it isn't a case of them "choosing to be offended", they are offended.
Of course the overwhelming majority of the offended look the other way, and the people who turn to terrorism are just looking for an excuse to cause trouble, they are wronguns, but if you have a policy of mass immigration of people who are devoutly religious, surely it is worthwhile empathising with them rather than openly mocking them and telling them to wear it?
I am against any kind of positive discrimination, but manners and politeness cost nothing. I am not saying there should be any restriction on free speech, but if there is no regulation then things regulate themselves, and that is the price of free speech
Of course had Enoch Powell been listened to in his Birmingham speech, or The Road to National Suicide, these problems would have been avoided. I notice @TheScreamingEagles yesterday said if he could change anything it would be the de facto segregation of religious cultures and races in the UK.. Of course! That is why Powell made those speeches, because mass immigration from countries that have completely different cultures and religions to that of the host nation cannot help but end up with segregation and ghettoization.. that certainty was the inspiration behind his speeches
"Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population"
You are surely not saying that Cam, the man vilified many times over, who is like a wet fish in wetland, Mr U-Turn himself, will be able to persuade the great people of these Isles to stay if they don't want to?
Really? He has that much power?
Or do you think that while you are able to look at the issues critically and make your own mind up, regardless of what the politicians say, perhaps the great unwashed are not able to do so?
You Tories really are thick.
We have said this often before and it remains true. With the leaders of the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour all campaigning to remain in the EU and the PM misrepresenting any concessions he has 'gained' from the EU it will be a very difficult task to win an Out result. With Camsron gone that task becomes much easier. There will be a vote at some time over the next couple of Parliaments on remaining in the EU because the dynamics of the EU with the move towards ever closer union will force it. My aim is to make sure that when that vote happens, the Out side win. Yours is apparently to make sure that the whole issue is nullified for the sake of your beloved party.
As always it comes back to a matter of principles. Or lack of them in the case of the Tories.
You Kippers really are arrogant.
Put simply: you don't trust the electorate to deliver the "right" answer.
Leftism at its best.
Pathetic also - that's one of the reasons I am a "thick" Tory: we prefer to trust the electorate.
Yeah we just dont trust parliament, which is why the EAW was passed without a vote, despite having told parliament there would be one.
OT -- Tesco has announced the closure of its staff pension scheme. A fitting response to all the till workers and shelf stackers who misreported profits in the annual accounts.
The issues at Tesco are larger than the profit misreporting.
Plus, they've launched a raft of other changes,
Indeed, and on the bright side, now that another good one has closed, pb Tories will have even more ammunition when they compare public and private sector pensions.
Public sector pensions have already undergone reform. This is yet another area where Blair talked the talk but it was Cameron and the Tories who walked the walk. Do LDs approve of the pension reforms? And of course the other thing about the public sector is that 400,000 jobs have gone and another 800,000 are set to go. Under the tories. This is good. I approve. Do the LDs I wonder? Of course this does not encourage the unionised public sector to vote tory and rather undermines the kipper logic of liblabcon. All of which point to why right wing opinion should concentrate on voting tory rather than ferreting after the working class BNP vote. (I was being deliberately provocative there but without the satire - so its probably unjustified)
Monksfield.. Burnhakm may have some serious and legitimate points but he always fails dismally to deliver them and along comes Hunt and rips him apart ... it is akin to being savaged by a demented mosquito ... Burnham is trounced every single time...and his dismal features tell everyone he knows it.
'You are surely not saying that Cam, the man vilified many times over, who is like a wet fish in wetland, Mr U-Turn himself, will be able to persuade the great people of these Isles to stay if they don't want to?'
They wanted a referendum ,got it,now don't want it and desperately trying to find excuses for having their bluff called.
It's the BBC, the Establishment ,Cameron,the wrong time,the price of milk,the end to their Euro troughing etc.
How many of UKIP's 15% do you think would ever return to the Tories, as opposed to being NOTA, DK, DNV, Blue Labour etc ?
That's up to them. If they want the possibility of the UK leaving the EU, they can vote Conservative. I don't presume to tell them how to vote, all I'm doing is pointing out the option available to them. Socrates' argument seems to be entirely circular, that the Conservatives can't get a majority because not enough people will vote for them, therefore the large proportion of the electorate people who claim they want a referendum shouldn't vote for them, therefore the Conservatives can't get a majority,
You seem to think the "large proportion of the electorate who want a referendum" are an undifferentiated mass with a single set of political beliefs. They're not. Each one of us needs to decide how to vote based on what others are doing.
What's completely inconsistent in your logic is that you implicitly accept this when demanding people vote Conservative rather than UKIP.
You say "UKIP can't win a majority, so you should vote Conservative to get a referendum", ignoring the fact that if everyone who wanted a referendum voted UKIP, they'd get in. But then suddenly claim that latter condition is valid when you argue "The Conservatives can win a a majority, so you should vote Conservative to get a referendum".
How many of UKIP's 15% do you think would ever return to the Tories, as opposed to being NOTA, DK, DNV, Blue Labour etc ?
That's up to them. If they want the possibility of the UK leaving the EU, they can vote Conservative. I don't presume to tell them how to vote, all I'm doing is pointing out the option available to them. Socrates' argument seems to be entirely circular, that the Conservatives can't get a majority because not enough people will vote for them, therefore the large proportion of the electorate people who claim they want a referendum shouldn't vote for them, therefore the Conservatives can't get a majority,
Its probably fair to say for quite a view kippers the EU isn't their main issue, or at least not directly, I would guess from the results of the BES that immigration is the main issue. You know as well as I do people largely dont vote for parties on the basis of one issue, lots of kipper supporters wouldn't vote for the Tories because a) they won't control immigration and b) they disagree with other aspects of their platform such as austerity or because they think they are just there for the toffs.
'You are surely not saying that Cam, the man vilified many times over, who is like a wet fish in wetland, Mr U-Turn himself, will be able to persuade the great people of these Isles to stay if they don't want to?'
They wanted a referendum ,got it,now don't want it and desperately trying to find excuses for having their bluff called.
It's the BBC, the Establishment ,Cameron,the wrong time,the price of milk,the end to their Euro troughing etc.
One thinks they could well enjoy the next decade whining at Milliband for not giving them a referendum.
You are surely not saying that Cam, the man vilified many times over, who is like a wet fish in wetland, Mr U-Turn himself, will be able to persuade the great people of these Isles to stay if they don't want to?
Really? He has that much power?
Or do you think that while you are able to look at the issues critically and make your own mind up, regardless of what the politicians say, perhaps the great unwashed are not able to do so?
You Tories really are thick.
We have said this often before and it remains true. With the leaders of the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour all campaigning to remain in the EU and the PM misrepresenting any concessions he has 'gained' from the EU it will be a very difficult task to win an Out result. With Camsron gone that task becomes much easier. There will be a vote at some time over the next couple of Parliaments on remaining in the EU because the dynamics of the EU with the move towards ever closer union will force it. My aim is to make sure that when that vote happens, the Out side win. Yours is apparently to make sure that the whole issue is nullified for the sake of your beloved party.
As always it comes back to a matter of principles. Or lack of them in the case of the Tories.
You Kippers really are arrogant.
Put simply: you don't trust the electorate to deliver the "right" answer.
Leftism at its best.
Pathetic also - that's one of the reasons I am a "thick" Tory: we prefer to trust the electorate.
Yeah we just dont trust parliament, which is why the EAW was passed without a vote, despite having told parliament there would be one.
Blah blah parliament this, Heath that, smoke and mirrors they'll pull the wool the other.
Kippers want out of the EU. As it stands, in this generation (I get some are playing the long game, regardless of the Kipper demographic), there is only one way of achieving that: a Cons OM and referendum.
Now you are saying that the electorate (not you Indigo, mind, or Richard Tyndall, or any other sophisticated Kipper on here) are not up to it and will be confused and vote the wrong way.
Read in the Metro that there was a lot of hard talking on the EU renegotiation between Cameron and Merkel yesterday.
The journalist was right: all the hard talking was done by Merkel.
What is hard about saying "nein"?
Should have asked how many changes can we have to the EU rules, would have given us 9 areas to have a go at.
If euro-sceptics were logical, which of course they aren't, they would love every minute of Cam getting a shellacking by Merkel. Every ridiculously trivial regulation set to be repatriated. Every failure to achieve a stated aim.
And then vote Cons. To get the referendum they so desperately want. And then vote: "NO".
But of course the world does not work in a logical way.
More to the point, euro-sceptics don't work in a logical way. They would rather we had a Government that refuses them a vote on an early IN/OUT referendum and forges ever more intractible ties to Brussels, than work to elect the one party in with a chance to give them what they say they crave.
If you mean the Tories, then they don't have a chance to give us a referendum. They won't win a majority, and no potential coalition partners will allow a referendum.
Just because they won't publicly spell it out because it would kill them in an election campaign, doesn't mean it isn't a red line for them. The Lib Dems are the most Europhile group ever, there's no way they'd allow it.
You seem to think the "large proportion of the electorate who want a referendum" are an undifferentiated mass with a single set of political beliefs. They're not. Each one of us needs to decide how to vote based on what others are doing.
What's completely inconsistent in your logic is that you implicitly accept this when demanding people vote Conservative rather than UKIP.
No, not at all. It might well be - in fact I think it probably is the case - that many of those who say they'll vote UKIP are not particularly fussed about leaving the EU, it's just one of a set of unfocused moans. Again, entirely up to them. However, they and you can't have it both ways. If leaving the EU is extremely important to you, vote Conservative. If it's not, vote for any other party, but in that case why go on and on about the EU and make up all sorts of nonsense about Cameron and the referendum, apparently as an excuse to justify torpedoing what you claim you most want?
Of course, quite why anyone would vote in any way which might lead to a Miliband government is incomprehensible to me, but that's democracy.
You know that Kipper councillor that was dumped by the party because she said something to the BBC that was really shocking but no one would say what it was.
Well the Times has found out what she said.
A Ukip councillor was expelled from the party for allegedly saying that she had a problem with “negroes” because there was “something about their faces,” The Times can reveal.
Rozanne Duncan was kicked out last month after making “jaw-dropping” remarks to a BBC documentary-maker, but both the party and the broadcaster declined to reveal what she had said.
The difference between this one and the UKIP case is that UKIP kicked out the offender for not representing the views, while the Tories are happy to hang on to this one.
Two wrongs...
Glasshouses... stones...
Not my glasshouses, I'm quite happy to throw stones at both.
However, they and you can't have it both ways. If leaving the EU is extremely important to you, vote Conservative. If it's not, vote for any other party, but in that case why go on and on about the EU?
You can't actually engage with my criticism of your argument, so you just step back and repeat the original high level argument again. It's moronic.
The reality is the same. Given the polling outlook, neither the Tories nor UKIP can win a majority in the next election. Both the Tories and UKIP would win a majority if all those that wanted a referendum voted for them. It's the exact same situation. But you refuse to be consistent about it.
Pathetic also - that's one of the reasons I am a "thick" Tory: we prefer to trust the electorate.
What drivel. You can't even trust your own ministers to give their honest views on Cameron's renegotiation, instead forcing a three line whip.
I have to admit there is no argument against the "he won't give us a referendum if he is elected" line.
You and I sat there and watched him look us in the eye and tell us "if I'm PM there will be a referendum", he has his idiotic back-benchers lining up to jettison Owen Paterson into the hot seat, it would in any case be political suicide to renege on his promise but no...you don't believe him.
Fair enough; not being able to prove or disprove a future action leaves this line at a dead end.
It is not the one, however, pushed by some of your Kipper colleagues on here, who, simply, don't think the electorate is up to the job of delivering the right answer.
Leader of the BNP says vote BNP in the London Mayoral elections, and if they win he will campaign for a Black Chief of the Met, & appoint a Black Deputy mayor
Would we criticise Doreen Lawrence for not voting BNP?
Kippers want out of the EU. As it stands, in this generation (I get some are playing the long game, regardless of the Kipper demographic), there is only one way of achieving that: a Cons OM and referendum.
No, there's two ways of achieving it. A Conservative Overall Majority and a UKIP Overall Majority. But neither are going to happen.
However, they and you can't have it both ways. If leaving the EU is extremely important to you, vote Conservative. If it's not, vote for any other party, but in that case why go on and on about the EU?
You can't actually engage with my criticism of your argument, so you just step back and repeat the original high level argument again. It's moronic.
The reality is the same. Given the polling outlook, neither the Tories nor UKIP can win a majority in the next election. Both the Tories and UKIP would win a majority if all those that wanted a referendum voted for them. It's the exact same situation. But you refuse to be consistent about it.
This is absolute nonsense. UKIP look set to win a handful of seats, probably three or four. On a really good night, maybe ten. The Conservatives, on most models, are within a few percentage points of a vote share which would give them a majority. It's not the 'exact same situation'.
Kippers want out of the EU. As it stands, in this generation (I get some are playing the long game, regardless of the Kipper demographic), there is only one way of achieving that: a Cons OM and referendum.
No, there's two ways of achieving it. A Conservative Overall Majority and a UKIP Overall Majority. But neither are going to happen.
Three ways: Thor comes down and builds a wall in the middle of the Channel and his acolytes set up passport control there.
Of the three, funnily enough, a Cons OM could happen. If the Kippers could marshall what limited logic they have and apply it to the EU issue (I appreciate the EU, as Richard Nabavi has said, is but one of their gripes).
Read in the Metro that there was a lot of hard talking on the EU renegotiation between Cameron and Merkel yesterday.
The journalist was right: all the hard talking was done by Merkel.
What is hard about saying "nein"?
Should have asked how many changes can we have to the EU rules, would have given us 9 areas to have a go at.
If euro-sceptics were logical, which of course they aren't, they would love every minute of Cam getting a shellacking by Merkel. Every ridiculously trivial regulation set to be repatriated. Every failure to achieve a stated aim.
And then vote Cons. To get the referendum they so desperately want. And then vote: "NO".
But of course the world does not work in a logical way.
More to the point, euro-sceptics don't work in a logical way. They would rather we had a Government that refuses them a vote on an early IN/OUT referendum and forges ever more intractible ties to Brussels, than work to elect the one party in with a chance to give them what they say they crave.
If you mean the Tories, then they don't have a chance to give us a referendum. They won't win a majority, and no potential coalition partners will allow a referendum.
Just because they won't publicly spell it out because it would kill them in an election campaign, doesn't mean it isn't a red line for them. The Lib Dems are the most Europhile group ever, there's no way they'd allow it.
Of course they would, it would be in a Tory manifesto so would have to be accepted by any potential coalition partners. Besides the vote would go against withdrawal. Admit that you're not always right.
If everyone whose first choice party was the Greens had voted Green in 2010 (No tactical voting at all) (And subsequent by-elections), would the Greens have achieved major party status today ?
Again, entirely up to them. However, they and you can't have it both ways. If leaving the EU is extremely important to you, vote Conservative. If it's not, vote for any other party, but in that case why go on and on about the EU?
I thought that would be obvious.
The UKIP leadership bang on about the EU because that is what is important to them, that isn't to say its what is important to all, or even a majority of their members. In the same way Cameron banged on about say gay marriage which certainly wasn't important to the bulk of Tory voters.
Both leaders are playing the same game, trying to corral their vote to achieve their political aims, which isn't to say you could rely on many of Farage's Merry Men voting Conservative if it meant the chance of getting out of the EU, because a) its the not the salient issue to many of them, in the same way Ed wouldn't have attract many Tories by promoting his gay marriage bill to them and b) most of UKIP are probably NOTA and wouldn't believe Cameron anyway.
However, they and you can't have it both ways. If leaving the EU is extremely important to you, vote Conservative. If it's not, vote for any other party, but in that case why go on and on about the EU?
You can't actually engage with my criticism of your argument, so you just step back and repeat the original high level argument again. It's moronic.
The reality is the same. Given the polling outlook, neither the Tories nor UKIP can win a majority in the next election. Both the Tories and UKIP would win a majority if all those that wanted a referendum voted for them. It's the exact same situation. But you refuse to be consistent about it.
This is absolute nonsense. UKIP look set to win a handful of seats, probably three or four. On a really good night, maybe ten. The Conservatives, on most models, are within a few percentage points of a vote share which would give them a majority. It's not the 'exact same situation'.
My brother is far better at skimming stones across water than I am. But neither of us will be able to skim stones all the way across Lake Michigan. Thus our relative performance doesn't matter. Neither will get there.
The fact is that muslims are going to be offended by images that mock their prophet.. it isn't a case of them "choosing to be offended", they are offended.
Of course the overwhelming majority of the offended look the other way, and the people who turn to terrorism are just looking for an excuse to cause trouble, they are wronguns, but if you have a policy of mass immigration of people who are devoutly religious, surely it is worthwhile empathising with them rather than openly mocking them and telling them to wear it?
I am against any kind of positive discrimination, but manners and politeness cost nothing. I am not saying there should be any restriction on free speech, but if there is no regulation then things regulate themselves, and that is the price of free speech
Of course had Enoch Powell been listened to in his Birmingham speech, or The Road to National Suicide, these problems would have been avoided. I notice @TheScreamingEagles yesterday said if he could change anything it would be the de facto segregation of religious cultures and races in the UK.. Of course! That is why Powell made those speeches, because mass immigration from countries that have completely different cultures and religions to that of the host nation cannot help but end up with segregation and ghettoization.. that certainty was the inspiration behind his speeches
"Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population"
Life of Brian offended millions of Christians, some of them very deeply. The response was protest, pamphleteering, and debate. A few places banned the film. LoB was/is - compared to the Charlie cartoons - a much more overt and widely distributed attack on a particular faith and it's teachings.
However, they and you can't have it both ways. If leaving the EU is extremely important to you, vote Conservative. If it's not, vote for any other party, but in that case why go on and on about the EU?
You can't actually engage with my criticism of your argument, so you just step back and repeat the original high level argument again. It's moronic.
The reality is the same. Given the polling outlook, neither the Tories nor UKIP can win a majority in the next election. Both the Tories and UKIP would win a majority if all those that wanted a referendum voted for them. It's the exact same situation. But you refuse to be consistent about it.
This is absolute nonsense. UKIP look set to win a handful of seats, probably three or four. On a really good night, maybe ten. The Conservatives, on most models, are within a few percentage points of a vote share which would give them a majority. It's not the 'exact same situation'.
Of course they would, it would be in a Tory manifesto so would have to be accepted by any potential coalition partners. Besides the vote would go against withdrawal. Admit that you're not always right.
I'm not always right. But I'm right on this. Plenty of things in the Tory manifesto were dropped this time round in Coalition.
And the vote wouldn't go against withdrawal. That's why the Europhile parties all try to avoid a referendum, while the Eurosceptic one has always been committed to it.
The reality is that the real changes that need to take place in the EU are fundamental. As David MacAllister explained on Today yesterday the EZ need much deeper integration if their currency and economy is going to work. It is in our interests for this to work as they remain our largest trading partner.
What we need in return is an EU structure that protects those, principally ourselves, from domination by this EZ block. This means that regulations and rules which are needed for integration do not apply to us and we have much greater freedom than EZ countries will to determine our own domestic policy. It also means QMV will need to be tweaked so our views cannot be overridden on essential matters.
This is just obvious and straightforward. The tricky bit is working out where the boundaries are within the context of a single market. If, for example, the EU had no role in financial regulation and 50% of all the financial services in the EU are provided out of London we are basically asking the EZ to give up the power to regulate those services with the systemic problems that that might cause for their own countries. A compromise needs to be found by which the legitimate interests of the countries where the services are provided in the single market are protected.
Similarly, freedom to move and establish a business is an essential part of the Single Market. If a British company wants to open a branch office in Portugal and staff it with its own staff they must be free to do so. And vice versa of course. This does not necessarily mean those British or Portuguese staff should immediately have access to in work benefits.
The chances of all of this being resolved by 2017 seem almost non existent to me but perhaps that doesn't matter too much. There will never be a final settlement with the EU, even if we left. It is a dynamic relationship that will continue to change over time. What we do need by 2017 is some agreed principles by which the future relationship will be governed. The British people can then work out whether that gives adequate protection within the EU or whether we are better to have an arms length negotiation from outside.
I for one think this is a conversation with the British people that is long overdue.
As well as harming the local economy, it will also mean a drop in invisible exports thus worsening the balance of payments, and also a higher bill for the RAF and/or MOD who will have to pay for the bases unless and until they can sell them off. If the bases are sold, of course, they will no longer be available for the next Pentagon review.
Let's understand what this right not to be offended or to have your religion offended actually means. It it presented - and Iqbal Sacranie was at it again last night on Newsnight - as a defensive act by a victim who was hurt and upset. And it is quite clever to present it in this way because normal decent people do not want (generally) to go round hurting others. But it is fundamentally wrong. it is an aggressive act. What people like Sacranie are doing is saying that in Islam it is wrong to draw Mohammed. Fine - for Muslims. But by saying that they are offended when non-Muslims do it they are effectively - and this is an act of aggression - saying that non-Muslims too must abide by this particular Islamic tenet. And to that I say no. Whether you choose to be offended or, if offended, to react is your own affair. You have a choice. But do not presume to impose your beliefs on others because that is what you are doing by saying that I cannot draw him or write about him or whatever other than in the manner you dictate. Muslims are free to practise their faith. But what they cannot - must not - be allowed to do is to impose it on others. We need to stop seeing those who use this "I am offended" canard as victims and treat them as the passive-aggressors that they really are.
You are right. Being offended is no excuse for anything, certainly not murder. It is absolutely right to be able to or want to campaign against anything, not least the tenets of any religion you consider oppressive. Leaving aside terrorists though and concentrating on 'normal' religious beliefs - should one be rude and vulgar about them? Indeed does rudeness and vulgarity form part of free speech. Does satire have to be rude and vulgar? Is it not unexpected to find people being upset if they are treated in this way? Let me repeat being upset does not justify murder or really any violent counter action. If one has a valid counter argument then by all means let them deploy it.
And in terms of actually fighting terrorism does it make sense to give terrorists the opportunity to invent excuses and feed on their misbegotten beliefs? It may well be that by once again exposing themselves as inhuman these loony terrorists will unite even further opinion against them. We must hope so. But that still leaves 12 people dead and all their pointless and rather bad satire has probably re-emphasised the West's culpability in the eyes of a sad group of mad people.
BTW - the 'I am Spartacus' response to these murders is very laudable. We really do need something similar from the muslim community if these poor people are not to have died in vain. It leaves me with 2 final thoughts 1 - What a powerful film maker Kubrick was 2 - All the slaves got crucified in the end.
"Three groups that campaign for freedom of expression are calling for media organisations and the public to publish Charlie Hebdo cartoons at the same time. The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, Index on Censorship and PEN America say in a statement it is "only through solidarity... can we defeat those who would use violence to silence free speech". The protest is planned at 1400 GMT."
Let's understand what this right not to be offended or to have your religion offended actually means. It it presented - and Iqbal Sacranie was at it again last night on Newsnight - as a defensive act by a victim who was hurt and upset. And it is quite clever to present it in this way because normal decent people do not want (generally) to go round hurting others.
But it is fundamentally wrong. it is an aggressive act. What people like Sacranie are doing is saying that in Islam it is wrong to draw Mohammed. Fine - for Muslims. But by saying that they are offended when non-Muslims do it they are effectively - and this is an act of aggression - saying that non-Muslims too must abide by this particular Islamic tenet.
And to that I say no.
Whether you choose to be offended or, if offended, to react is your own affair. You have a choice. But do not presume to impose your beliefs on others because that is what you are doing by saying that I cannot draw him or write about him or whatever other than in the manner you dictate.
Muslims are free to practise their faith. But what they cannot - must not - be allowed to do is to impose it on others.
We need to stop seeing those who use this "I am offended" canard as victims and treat them as the passive-aggressors that they really are.
The fact is that muslims are going to be offended by images that mock their prophet.. it isn't a case of them "choosing to be offended", they are offended.
Of course the overwhelming majority of the offended look the other way, and the people who turn to terrorism are just looking for an excuse to cause trouble, they are wronguns, but if you have a policy of mass immigration of people who are devoutly religious, surely it is worthwhile empathising with them rather than openly mocking them and telling them to wear it?
Part of the process by which we reduce the amount of stupid shit people believe in is that when they say stupid shit, we say it's stupid shit, or alternatively take the piss out of them.
This is an important aspect of civil discourse, and if you think there's an omnipotent invisible superhero who gets deeply upset by cartoons, you believe in some very, very stupid shit.
The reality is that the real changes that need to take place in the EU are fundamental. As David MacAllister explained on Today yesterday the EZ need much deeper integration if their currency and economy is going to work. It is in our interests for this to work as they remain our largest trading partner.
What we need in return is an EU structure that protects those, principally ourselves, from domination by this EZ block. This means that regulations and rules which are needed for integration do not apply to us and we have much greater freedom than EZ countries will to determine our own domestic policy. It also means QMV will need to be tweaked so our views cannot be overridden on essential matters.
This is just obvious and straightforward. The tricky bit is working out where the boundaries are within the context of a single market. If, for example, the EU had no role in financial regulation and 50% of all the financial services in the EU are provided out of London we are basically asking the EZ to give up the power to regulate those services with the systemic problems that that might cause for their own countries. A compromise needs to be found by which the legitimate interests of the countries where the services are provided in the single market are protected.
Similarly, freedom to move and establish a business is an essential part of the Single Market. If a British company wants to open a branch office in Portugal and staff it with its own staff they must be free to do so. And vice versa of course. This does not necessarily mean those British or Portuguese staff should immediately have access to in work benefits.
The chances of all of this being resolved by 2017 seem almost non existent to me but perhaps that doesn't matter too much. There will never be a final settlement with the EU, even if we left. It is a dynamic relationship that will continue to change over time. What we do need by 2017 is some agreed principles by which the future relationship will be governed. The British people can then work out whether that gives adequate protection within the EU or whether we are better to have an arms length negotiation from outside.
I for one think this is a conversation with the British people that is long overdue.
Not to deny what is undoubtedly going to be a complex re-alignment in some ways but isn't it the case that the EFTA and through it the EEA already exists as an organisation that does exactly what you (and I) would want? It provides a trading bloc without the political involvement. Yes there would be issues that would need to be resolved but as a basic structure to provide that separation surely it is already in place.
I haven't said any different, but everything comes at a price.
You could ask, if there wasn't mass immigration in France and the UK, would the tension created by mocking of Prophet Mohammed be so serious? Or would there be a demand for such satire in the first place?:
Slightly on topic... I watched Burnham being trounced yet again at UQ yesterday...why does this leadership hopeful always look as if he is sitting in wet underpants....
Every Labour politician is always being trounced in your fantasy world, Richard.
Burnham has scored some useful hits in the last few days. The NHS crisis is a systemic response to austerity biting all over the shop. Council cuts in particular, but also resources available to carers have clearly impacted on our capacity to care for the old and infirm at home. Et voila... Hospitals and in particular A&E overstretched.
And your answer to this dilemma bearing in mind the lack of available money is ...
I don't claim to have all the answers, but I'm sure that they lie through addressing society's inequalities; in my view through reforming corporate and individual taxation to develop systems that are fit for purpose in a globalised economy. Our current systems clearly aren't but are maintained by the self interest of the elite. Only by reforming taxation will we be able to maintain any vestige of the systems and services that have made the vast majority of people's lives better. What I don't want is more of the red in tooth and claw, winner takes all, nineteenth century solutioning beloved of Osborne, Cameron and co.
It's people seeing through the greed and the vested and self interest, and the way it is operating at a global level that is turning people against conventional parties and politics. The worry is where it ends up, as it doesn't take more than a cursory glance at history to get some clues.
It is not the one, however, pushed by some of your Kipper colleagues on here, who, simply, don't think the electorate is up to the job of delivering the right answer.
Do you believe the electorate were up to it in 1975 ?
It is not the one, however, pushed by some of your Kipper colleagues on here, who, simply, don't think the electorate is up to the job of delivering the right answer.
Do you believe the electorate were up to it in 1975 ?
I don't think the electorate were up to it in 1997, 2001 or 2005 but that's democracy for you.
If everyone whose first choice party was the Greens had voted Green in 2010 (No tactical voting at all) (And subsequent by-elections), would the Greens have achieved major party status today ?
Probably not unless they fielded another 150 candidates.
Given recent polling has the Greens arguably ahead of the Lib Dems, it certainly seems a contestable decision. Not sure which way I'd go. I had been against it (I think), but their polling has improved. Hmm.
If everyone whose first choice party was the Greens had voted Green in 2010 (No tactical voting at all) (And subsequent by-elections), would the Greens have achieved major party status today ?
Probably not unless they fielded another 150 candidates.
Which was perhaps a tactical consideration in and of itself.
The fact is that muslims are going to be offended by images that mock their prophet.. it isn't a case of them "choosing to be offended", they are offended.
Of course the overwhelming majority of the offended look the other way, and the people who turn to terrorism are just looking for an excuse to cause trouble, they are wronguns, but if you have a policy of mass immigration of people who are devoutly religious, surely it is worthwhile empathising with them rather than openly mocking them and telling them to wear it?
I am against any kind of positive discrimination, but manners and politeness cost nothing. I am not saying there should be any restriction on free speech, but if there is no regulation then things regulate themselves, and that is the price of free speech
Of course had Enoch Powell been listened to in his Birmingham speech, or The Road to National Suicide, these problems would have been avoided. I notice @TheScreamingEagles yesterday said if he could change anything it would be the de facto segregation of religious cultures and races in the UK.. Of course! That is why Powell made those speeches, because mass immigration from countries that have completely different cultures and religions to that of the host nation cannot help but end up with segregation and ghettoization.. that certainty was the inspiration behind his speeches
"Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population"
Life of Brian offended millions of Christians, some of them very deeply. The response was protest, pamphleteering, and debate. A few places banned the film. LoB was/is - compared to the Charlie cartoons - a much more overt and widely distributed attack on a particular faith and it's teachings.
You are surely not saying that Cam, the man vilified many times over, who is like a wet fish in wetland, Mr U-Turn himself, will be able to persuade the great people of these Isles to stay if they don't want to?
Really? He has that much power?
Or do you think that while you are able to look at the issues critically and make your own mind up, regardless of what the politicians say, perhaps the great unwashed are not able to do so?
You Tories really are thick.
We have said this often before and it remains true. With the leaders of the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour all campaigning to remain in the EU and the PM misrepresenting any concessions he has 'gained' from the EU it will be a very difficult task to win an Out result. With Camsron gone that task becomes much easier. There will be a vote at some time over the next couple of Parliaments on remaining in the EU because the dynamics of the EU with the move towards ever closer union will force it. My aim is to make sure that when that vote happens, the Out side win. Yours is apparently to make sure that the whole issue is nullified for the sake of your beloved party.
As always it comes back to a matter of principles. Or lack of them in the case of the Tories.
You Kippers really are arrogant.
Put simply: you don't trust the electorate to deliver the "right" answer.
Leftism at its best.
Pathetic also - that's one of the reasons I am a "thick" Tory: we prefer to trust the electorate.
No Topping the arrogant ones are the Tories like yourself who think that your party has a god given right to rule and that we should just tug our forelocks and vote for you blindly even though we know you will oppose our wishes at every turn. Lying, arrogant and thoroughly despicable. Sums up the Cameron Tory party perfectly.
I think @DavidL's post neatly demonstrates the sheer impossibility of what Cameron proposes. Worth noting any deepening of integration will throw up a Treaty change which will be subject to referendum anyway.
Nick Palmer posted a link to what the Balance of Competences review proposed as possible areas for repatriation and, quite frankly, reviewing them what's the point? Car seat regs (and why by the way? To water them down? I and other consumers would be forced to carry on buying higher EU standard German ones in that case) Really? Is that it? All these years of eurosceptic wailing boiled down to wanting Doctors to be lashed by 100 hour weeks, or for car seats to be built shoddily?
However, for the likes of @Socrates, coming from a Labour voter who doesn't want a referendum for the common sense reason that it would be a pointless diversion of resources and attention from Britain's real ongoing problems, I can guarantee that Cameron will nevertheless hold one in 2017 - but without any substantial renegotiation (the one offered will be championed as a victory of course - as these things are by Tories cf Osborne's behaviour in the past 4 years - but will be small beer)
And in terms of actually fighting terrorism does it make sense to give terrorists the opportunity to invent excuses and feed on their misbegotten beliefs? It may well be that by once again exposing themselves as inhuman these loony terrorists will unite even further opinion against them. We must hope so. But that still leaves 12 people dead and all their pointless and rather bad satire has probably re-emphasised the West's culpability in the eyes of a sad group of mad people.
The problem with this for me is they are basically playing salami tactics, if we yield on satire, two things will happen, we will have demonstrated that we yield to pressure, and they will move on to the next part of our culture they dont like.
What happens next month when they push on something a little closer to our hearts, maybe they decide the next pressure point is segregated audiences, maybe they blow up a cinema full of people somewhere in the UK, and announce that these actions will happen from time to time until we sit women at the back and men at the front.
Its only a question of degree, once we demonstrate that we can be budged (and we already have many times) they will just keep shifting the pressure point to the next item on the agenda, eventually we either say "enough" or we end up as part of the caliphate. If we are determined not to end up under Sharia Law, saying "enough" now is as good a time as any.
I think Merkel could live with repatriation of car seat regulations!
Jesus:
The report recommended that the EU’s working time directive, water standards, car safety seats and agency working standards should be taken back under Britain’s control.
That's it? That's the starting point of Cameron's repatriation demands? No one can claim the Conservatives are a eurosceptic party any more.
The British Sausage lives on (c) Yes Minister (Party Games)
I am not so easily fooled by Socrates' propaganda. The Working Time Directive and Agency Working Standards are important issues to our economy.
Tories desperately floundering on here this morning. Desperate stuff.
The Watcher: I have published them, in my own name, on Facebook. Most pb'ers - including OGH - have now met me, and know my real name/ identity as well.
I expect more from our leaders and mainstream media. Plenty of other French, and European, publications are willing to stand up to this.
Given recent polling has the Greens arguably ahead of the Lib Dems, it certainly seems a contestable decision. Not sure which way I'd go. I had been against it (I think), but their polling has improved. Hmm.
OFCOM have done it to irk me.
They know my Greens outpolling the Lib Dems bet is dependent on the Greens being in the debates.
The fact is that muslims are going to be offended by images that mock their prophet.. it isn't a case of them "choosing to be offended", they are offended.
Of course the overwhelming majority of the offended look the other way, and the people who turn to terrorism are just looking for an excuse to cause trouble, they are wronguns, but if you have a policy of mass immigration of people who are devoutly religious, surely it is worthwhile empathising with them rather than openly mocking them and telling them to wear it?
I am against any kind of positive discrimination, but manners and politeness cost nothing. I am not saying there should be any restriction on free speech, but if there is no regulation then things regulate themselves, and that is the price of free speech
Of course had Enoch Powell been listened to in his Birmingham speech, or The Road to National Suicide, these problems would have been avoided. I notice @TheScreamingEagles yesterday said if he could change anything it would be the de facto segregation of religious cultures and races in the UK.. Of course! That is why Powell made those speeches, because mass immigration from countries that have completely different cultures and religions to that of the host nation cannot help but end up with segregation and ghettoization.. that certainty was the inspiration behind his speeches
"Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population"
Life of Brian offended millions of Christians, some of them very deeply. The response was protest, pamphleteering, and debate. A few places banned the film. LoB was/is - compared to the Charlie cartoons - a much more overt and widely distributed attack on a particular faith and it's teachings.
We all know the real reasons: other religions don't murder and kill over these images. Some extremist Muslims do, and people are scared and frightened of that.
Let's understand what this right not to be offended or to have your religion offended actually means. It it presented - and Iqbal Sacranie was at it again last night on Newsnight - as a defensive act by a victim who was hurt and upset. And it is quite clever to present it in this way because normal decent people do not want (generally) to go round hurting others.
But it is fundamentally wrong. it is an aggressive act. What people like Sacranie are doing is saying that in Islam it is wrong to draw Mohammed. Fine - for Muslims. But by saying that they are offended when non-Muslims do it they are effectively - and this is an act of aggression - saying that non-Muslims too must abide by this particular Islamic tenet.
And to that I say no.
Whether you choose to be offended or, if offended, to react is your own affair. You have a choice. But do not presume to impose your beliefs on others because that is what you are doing by saying that I cannot draw him or write about him or whatever other than in the manner you dictate.
Muslims are free to practise their faith. But what they cannot - must not - be allowed to do is to impose it on others.
We need to stop seeing those who use this "I am offended" canard as victims and treat them as the passive-aggressors that they really are.
The fact is that muslims are going to be offended by images that mock their prophet.. it isn't a case of them "choosing to be offended", they are offended.
Of course the overwhelming majority of the offended look the other way, and the people who turn to terrorism are just looking for an excuse to cause trouble, they are wronguns, but if you have a policy of mass immigration of people who are devoutly religious, surely it is worthwhile empathising with them rather than openly mocking them and telling them to wear it?
Part of the process by which we reduce the amount of stupid shit people believe in is that when they say stupid shit, we say it's stupid shit, or alternatively take the piss out of them.
This is an important aspect of civil discourse, and if you think there's an omnipotent invisible superhero who gets deeply upset by cartoons, you believe in some very, very stupid shit.
Mr. Eagles, if you think you're being victimised, just remember when I was all green for the SCD final, until the BBC gerrymandered the rules to let Tom Chambers through, and the subsequent rejigging of bets left me with a far smaller profit margin.
Mr. Royale, et al., there's a call to post Hebdo cartoons at 2pm. Not sure if I'll be in/on then, but if I can be, I will be.
The reaction from the British media, both print and broadcast, will be very interesting to observe.
Mr. Eagles, if you think you're being victimised, just remember when I was all green for the SCD final, until the BBC gerrymandered the rules to let Tom Chambers through, and the subsequent rejigging of bets left me with a far smaller profit margin.
Mr. Royale, et al., there's a call to post Hebdo cartoons at 2pm. Not sure if I'll be in/on then, but if I can be, I will be.
The reaction from the British media, both print and broadcast, will be very interesting to observe.
That was a brilliant decision by the BBC to let Tom Chambers through to the final.
This was nothing to do with the fact I had backed Tom Chambers to win and was laying Rachel Stevens
I think Merkel could live with repatriation of car seat regulations!
It is not an official position it is a background consultation. What about the Working Time Directive? Agency Working Standards? Not minor at all, ''Other EU structural changes include establishing a dedicated Single Market Council, splitting the financial services and single market portfolios within the Commission and establishing a new single market authority.'' Financial Services are important to us. We also have seem Merkel agreeing about abuse of welfare rules within the single market. Plus... ''Instead the report highlighted fears of the UK’s future relationship with a centralising eurozone. “Some respondents suggested that national parliaments should play a greater role in policy-making while tensions between the Eurogroup and the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) need to be managed carefully,” according to the report. It said that the implementation of new qualified majority voting rules agreed under the Lisbon Treaty, have “increased the collective influence of the euro area and therefore the risks associated with euro area caucusing.” ...reforms to the euro area were creating a fluid institutional framework “and a number of pieces of evidence suggested that Treaty change is likely to be required to resolve these tensions.” ''
This is the point about negotiations - how the Eurozone and ever closer union affect us.
I think we can all see your pro EU bias shining through. Plus your eagerness with your prpopaganda to help UKIP
'but isn't it the case that the EFTA and through it the EEA already exists as an organisation that does exactly what you (and I) would want? It provides a trading bloc without the political involvement.'
With free movement of people being a key requirement for EFTA members.
BBC saying that Evans with Oldham off due partly to "threats to staff and their families". If so, that is deeply disturbing.
All this whipped up by the media. They weren't interested when Marlon "14 convictions" King signed for Sheffield United, or killers Lee Hughes and Luke McCormick signed for clubs upon their release from prison.
Let's understand what this right not to be offended or to have your religion offended actually means. It it presented - and Iqbal Sacranie was at it again last night on Newsnight - as a defensive act by a victim who was hurt and upset. And it is quite clever to present it in this way because normal decent people do not want (generally) to go round hurting others.
But it is fundamentally wrong. it is an aggressive act. What people like Sacranie are doing is saying that in Islam it is wrong to draw Mohammed. Fine - for Muslims. But by saying that they are offended when non-Muslims do it they are effectively - and this is an act of aggression - saying that non-Muslims too must abide by this particular Islamic tenet.
Muslims are free to practise their faith. But what they cannot - must not - be allowed to do is to impose it on others.
We need to stop seeing those who use this "I am offended" canard as victims and treat them as the passive-aggressors that they really are.
The fact is that muslims are going to be offended by images that mock their prophet.. it isn't a case of them "choosing to be offended", they are offended.
Of course the overwhelming majority of the offended look the other way, and the people who turn to terrorism are just looking for an excuse to cause trouble, they are wronguns, but if you have a policy of mass immigration of people who are devoutly religious, surely it is worthwhile empathising with them rather than openly mocking them and telling them to wear it?
Part of the process by which we reduce the amount of stupid shit people believe in is that when they say stupid shit, we say it's stupid shit, or alternatively take the piss out of them.
This is an important aspect of civil discourse, and if you think there's an omnipotent invisible superhero who gets deeply upset by cartoons, you believe in some very, very stupid shit.
You sound like Russell Brand after he has read The God Delusion
I note you are trying to be offensive and no doubt hoping I am upset, but as I am not particularly religious, and have never been to Church, you are wide of the mark.
You say "civil" discourse.. well the "civil" part of it to me is not rubbishing something that is close to someones heart, because one way or the other it doesn't stay civil for long
Libertarianism isn't about saying whatever you like, it is about saying whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt someone else, and so, painful and tiresome as it may be, consideration and judgement have to be used
Let's understand what this right not to be offended or to have your religion offended actually means. It it presented - and Iqbal Sacranie was at it again last night on Newsnight - as a defensive act by a victim who was hurt and upset. And it is quite clever to present it in this way because normal decent people do not want (generally) to go round hurting others.
But it is fundamentally wrong. it is an aggressive act. What people like Sacranie are doing is saying that in Islam it is wrong to draw Mohammed. Fine - for Muslims. But by saying that they are offended when non-Muslims do it they are effectively - and this is an act of aggression - saying that non-Muslims too must abide by this particular Islamic tenet.
And to that I say no.
Whether you choose to be offended or, if offended, to react is your own affair. You have a choice. But do not presume to impose your beliefs on others because that is what you are doing by saying that I cannot draw him or write about him or whatever other than in the manner you dictate.
Muslims are free to practise their faith. But what they cannot - must not - be allowed to do is to impose it on others.
We need to stop seeing those who use this "I am offended" canard as victims and treat them as the passive-aggressors that they really are.
The fact is that muslims are going to be offended by images that mock their prophet.. it isn't a case of them "choosing to be offended", they are offended.
Of course the overwhelming majority of the offended look the other way, and the people who turn to terrorism are just looking for an excuse to cause trouble, they are wronguns, but if you have a policy of mass immigration of people who are devoutly religious, surely it is worthwhile empathising with them rather than openly mocking them and telling them to wear it?
Part of the process by which we reduce the amount of stupid shit people believe in is that when they say stupid shit, we say it's stupid shit, or alternatively take the piss out of them.
This is an important aspect of civil discourse, and if you think there's an omnipotent invisible superhero who gets deeply upset by cartoons, you believe in some very, very stupid shit.
Well put. Couldn't agree more.
Good tweet from God: I am the omnipotent creator of the universe and master of all things, I can take a f**king joke.
Comments
Zulu got many personal details totally wrong but it still told the true story. Its hard to think of a more dramatic event, but it still had to change things to dramatise it.
We have said this often before and it remains true. With the leaders of the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour all campaigning to remain in the EU and the PM misrepresenting any concessions he has 'gained' from the EU it will be a very difficult task to win an Out result. With Camsron gone that task becomes much easier. There will be a vote at some time over the next couple of Parliaments on remaining in the EU because the dynamics of the EU with the move towards ever closer union will force it. My aim is to make sure that when that vote happens, the Out side win. Yours is apparently to make sure that the whole issue is nullified for the sake of your beloved party.
As always it comes back to a matter of principles. Or lack of them in the case of the Tories.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-30679132
The difference between this one and the UKIP case is that UKIP kicked out the offender for not representing the views, while the Tories are happy to hang on to this one.
Thank goodness you are around to help and guide them through their predicament to the right answer.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-30679132
His main plan for an emergency brake was ditched just 48 hours before he was going to announce it! Merkel said "jump" and Cameron said "how high?"
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/10/lib-dems-set-out-their-red-lines-eu-referendum-no-longer-one-them
As I might have remarked a few times before, the Tories insulting their right wing, and most of their traditional vote, and then crying because they are low in the polls does sound rather unfortunate.
I'd say NOM is about a 90% probability and should therefore be about 1/9 rather than the 4/9 currently available. I'm glad to see however that others, including the Esteemed Dr Palmer, believe that even this more moderate view overstates NOM's likelihood.
Keep up the good work, Nick. Somebody has to hold up the price for me. ;-)
Put simply: you don't trust the electorate to deliver the "right" answer.
Leftism at its best.
Pathetic also - that's one of the reasons I am a "thick" Tory: we prefer to trust the electorate.
There's nothing in what's happening in Scotland or in the numerous constituency polls to suggest that either main party is anywhere near 326 seats or has a particularly plausible route to it.
Flightpath,
You make some reasonable points but you miss the major one.
Despite Nick P's protestations, the question we were asked in 1975 was do you want to stay in the Common Market, not do you want to stay in the Common Market with a view to proceeding to Political Union. Had we been asked the true question, the answer would have been a resounding No.
So politicians bide their time, gradually do it piecemeal and eventually end up with the result they wanted.
Labour were ambivalent until they realised they could achieve many of their aims via Europe. For politicians in general, European bureaucracy enhances their careers.
Am I cynical? Yes, but I'm old and have seen these things happen before.
Do I trust politicians? Some, but these are the one who do not make progress in their party.
Frank Field for instance.
To climb the greasy pole, you lie and dissemble and have a streak of ruthlessness.
Nick P may lack one or two of these.
Of course the overwhelming majority of the offended look the other way, and the people who turn to terrorism are just looking for an excuse to cause trouble, they are wronguns, but if you have a policy of mass immigration of people who are devoutly religious, surely it is worthwhile empathising with them rather than openly mocking them and telling them to wear it?
I am against any kind of positive discrimination, but manners and politeness cost nothing. I am not saying there should be any restriction on free speech, but if there is no regulation then things regulate themselves, and that is the price of free speech
Of course had Enoch Powell been listened to in his Birmingham speech, or The Road to National Suicide, these problems would have been avoided. I notice @TheScreamingEagles yesterday said if he could change anything it would be the de facto segregation of religious cultures and races in the UK.. Of course! That is why Powell made those speeches, because mass immigration from countries that have completely different cultures and religions to that of the host nation cannot help but end up with segregation and ghettoization.. that certainty was the inspiration behind his speeches
"Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population"
Do LDs approve of the pension reforms?
And of course the other thing about the public sector is that 400,000 jobs have gone and another 800,000 are set to go. Under the tories. This is good. I approve. Do the LDs I wonder? Of course this does not encourage the unionised public sector to vote tory and rather undermines the kipper logic of liblabcon. All of which point to why right wing opinion should concentrate on voting tory rather than ferreting after the working class BNP vote. (I was being deliberately provocative there but without the satire - so its probably unjustified)
'You are surely not saying that Cam, the man vilified many times over, who is like a wet fish in wetland, Mr U-Turn himself, will be able to persuade the great people of these Isles to stay if they don't want to?'
They wanted a referendum ,got it,now don't want it and desperately trying to find excuses for having their bluff called.
It's the BBC, the Establishment ,Cameron,the wrong time,the price of milk,the end to their Euro troughing etc.
What's completely inconsistent in your logic is that you implicitly accept this when demanding people vote Conservative rather than UKIP.
You say "UKIP can't win a majority, so you should vote Conservative to get a referendum", ignoring the fact that if everyone who wanted a referendum voted UKIP, they'd get in. But then suddenly claim that latter condition is valid when you argue "The Conservatives can win a a majority, so you should vote Conservative to get a referendum".
Kippers want out of the EU. As it stands, in this generation (I get some are playing the long game, regardless of the Kipper demographic), there is only one way of achieving that: a Cons OM and referendum.
Now you are saying that the electorate (not you Indigo, mind, or Richard Tyndall, or any other sophisticated Kipper on here) are not up to it and will be confused and vote the wrong way.
Of course, quite why anyone would vote in any way which might lead to a Miliband government is incomprehensible to me, but that's democracy.
The reality is the same. Given the polling outlook, neither the Tories nor UKIP can win a majority in the next election. Both the Tories and UKIP would win a majority if all those that wanted a referendum voted for them. It's the exact same situation. But you refuse to be consistent about it.
You and I sat there and watched him look us in the eye and tell us "if I'm PM there will be a referendum", he has his idiotic back-benchers lining up to jettison Owen Paterson into the hot seat, it would in any case be political suicide to renege on his promise but no...you don't believe him.
Fair enough; not being able to prove or disprove a future action leaves this line at a dead end.
It is not the one, however, pushed by some of your Kipper colleagues on here, who, simply, don't think the electorate is up to the job of delivering the right answer.
Leader of the BNP says vote BNP in the London Mayoral elections, and if they win he will campaign for a Black Chief of the Met, & appoint a Black Deputy mayor
Would we criticise Doreen Lawrence for not voting BNP?
Mockery of religion is a very important freedom to uphold - anyway Rowan Atkinson puts it better than I can:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/dec/07/raceandreligion.broadcasting
Of the three, funnily enough, a Cons OM could happen. If the Kippers could marshall what limited logic they have and apply it to the EU issue (I appreciate the EU, as Richard Nabavi has said, is but one of their gripes).
They've pleased no one, a case study in self inflicted PR disasters.
Admit that you're not always right.
If everyone whose first choice party was the Greens had voted Green in 2010 (No tactical voting at all) (And subsequent by-elections), would the Greens have achieved major party status today ?
The UKIP leadership bang on about the EU because that is what is important to them, that isn't to say its what is important to all, or even a majority of their members. In the same way Cameron banged on about say gay marriage which certainly wasn't important to the bulk of Tory voters.
Both leaders are playing the same game, trying to corral their vote to achieve their political aims, which isn't to say you could rely on many of Farage's Merry Men voting Conservative if it meant the chance of getting out of the EU, because a) its the not the salient issue to many of them, in the same way Ed wouldn't have attract many Tories by promoting his gay marriage bill to them and b) most of UKIP are probably NOTA and wouldn't believe Cameron anyway.
Deaths: zero.
7/1 William Hill.. massive price
And the vote wouldn't go against withdrawal. That's why the Europhile parties all try to avoid a referendum, while the Eurosceptic one has always been committed to it.
What we need in return is an EU structure that protects those, principally ourselves, from domination by this EZ block. This means that regulations and rules which are needed for integration do not apply to us and we have much greater freedom than EZ countries will to determine our own domestic policy. It also means QMV will need to be tweaked so our views cannot be overridden on essential matters.
This is just obvious and straightforward. The tricky bit is working out where the boundaries are within the context of a single market. If, for example, the EU had no role in financial regulation and 50% of all the financial services in the EU are provided out of London we are basically asking the EZ to give up the power to regulate those services with the systemic problems that that might cause for their own countries. A compromise needs to be found by which the legitimate interests of the countries where the services are provided in the single market are protected.
Similarly, freedom to move and establish a business is an essential part of the Single Market. If a British company wants to open a branch office in Portugal and staff it with its own staff they must be free to do so. And vice versa of course. This does not necessarily mean those British or Portuguese staff should immediately have access to in work benefits.
The chances of all of this being resolved by 2017 seem almost non existent to me but perhaps that doesn't matter too much. There will never be a final settlement with the EU, even if we left. It is a dynamic relationship that will continue to change over time. What we do need by 2017 is some agreed principles by which the future relationship will be governed. The British people can then work out whether that gives adequate protection within the EU or whether we are better to have an arms length negotiation from outside.
I for one think this is a conversation with the British people that is long overdue.
No, you'll say, it will be biased.
Of course .. it will be along the lines of do you wish to stay in the Common Market and then proceed as fast as possible to full political union?
But it will be truthful, because it was the question we should have been asked in 1975.
Being offended is no excuse for anything, certainly not murder. It is absolutely right to be able to or want to campaign against anything, not least the tenets of any religion you consider oppressive.
Leaving aside terrorists though and concentrating on 'normal' religious beliefs - should one be rude and vulgar about them? Indeed does rudeness and vulgarity form part of free speech. Does satire have to be rude and vulgar? Is it not unexpected to find people being upset if they are treated in this way? Let me repeat being upset does not justify murder or really any violent counter action. If one has a valid counter argument then by all means let them deploy it.
And in terms of actually fighting terrorism does it make sense to give terrorists the opportunity to invent excuses and feed on their misbegotten beliefs? It may well be that by once again exposing themselves as inhuman these loony terrorists will unite even further opinion against them. We must hope so. But that still leaves 12 people dead and all their pointless and rather bad satire has probably re-emphasised the West's culpability in the eyes of a sad group of mad people.
BTW - the 'I am Spartacus' response to these murders is very laudable. We really do need something similar from the muslim community if these poor people are not to have died in vain.
It leaves me with 2 final thoughts
1 - What a powerful film maker Kubrick was
2 - All the slaves got crucified in the end.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-30722098
This is an important aspect of civil discourse, and if you think there's an omnipotent invisible superhero who gets deeply upset by cartoons, you believe in some very, very stupid shit.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2901189/When-Leah-targeted-internet-predator-father-wanted-revenge-PAEDOPHILE-HUNTERS.html?ito=social-facebook
Prize extracts:
"Leah was approached online in a chat room when she was just 17
Although he claimed to be 20, when they finally met she found out he was actually 40-years-old"
Note this is The Daily Mail, not The Daily Mash.
Slaughtered in the comments.
Edit. Good post by the way.
You could ask, if there wasn't mass immigration in France and the UK, would the tension created by mocking of Prophet Mohammed be so serious? Or would there be a demand for such satire in the first place?:
It's people seeing through the greed and the vested and self interest, and the way it is operating at a global level that is turning people against conventional parties and politics. The worry is where it ends up, as it doesn't take more than a cursory glance at history to get some clues.
I'm not exactly tempted.
If you really wanted to be on I could go for you if there isn't a Hills nearby.. plenty in my neck o the woods
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/total-seats-ukip-banded
Edit: Found it - Asked for £20, "Trader" is coming back to me...
Nick Palmer posted a link to what the Balance of Competences review proposed as possible areas for repatriation and, quite frankly, reviewing them what's the point? Car seat regs (and why by the way? To water them down? I and other consumers would be forced to carry on buying higher EU standard German ones in that case) Really? Is that it? All these years of eurosceptic wailing boiled down to wanting Doctors to be lashed by 100 hour weeks, or for car seats to be built shoddily?
However, for the likes of @Socrates, coming from a Labour voter who doesn't want a referendum for the common sense reason that it would be a pointless diversion of resources and attention from Britain's real ongoing problems, I can guarantee that Cameron will nevertheless hold one in 2017 - but without any substantial renegotiation (the one offered will be championed as a victory of course - as these things are by Tories cf Osborne's behaviour in the past 4 years - but will be small beer)
What happens next month when they push on something a little closer to our hearts, maybe they decide the next pressure point is segregated audiences, maybe they blow up a cinema full of people somewhere in the UK, and announce that these actions will happen from time to time until we sit women at the back and men at the front.
Its only a question of degree, once we demonstrate that we can be budged (and we already have many times) they will just keep shifting the pressure point to the next item on the agenda, eventually we either say "enough" or we end up as part of the caliphate. If we are determined not to end up under Sharia Law, saying "enough" now is as good a time as any.
The Working Time Directive and Agency Working Standards are important issues to our economy.
The Watcher: I have published them, in my own name, on Facebook. Most pb'ers - including OGH - have now met me, and know my real name/ identity as well.
I expect more from our leaders and mainstream media. Plenty of other French, and European, publications are willing to stand up to this.
They know my Greens outpolling the Lib Dems bet is dependent on the Greens being in the debates.
Mr. Royale, et al., there's a call to post Hebdo cartoons at 2pm. Not sure if I'll be in/on then, but if I can be, I will be.
The reaction from the British media, both print and broadcast, will be very interesting to observe.
This was nothing to do with the fact I had backed Tom Chambers to win and was laying Rachel Stevens
"Don't poo in the pool"..
https://gcn.civilservice.gov.uk/blog/2014/11/24/a-week-at-google-steve-vaughan/
What about the Working Time Directive? Agency Working Standards? Not minor at all,
''Other EU structural changes include establishing a dedicated Single Market Council, splitting the financial services and single market portfolios within the Commission and establishing a new single market authority.''
Financial Services are important to us.
We also have seem Merkel agreeing about abuse of welfare rules within the single market.
Plus...
''Instead the report highlighted fears of the UK’s future relationship with a centralising eurozone.
“Some respondents suggested that national parliaments should play a greater role in policy-making while tensions between the Eurogroup and the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) need to be managed carefully,” according to the report.
It said that the implementation of new qualified majority voting rules agreed under the Lisbon Treaty, have “increased the collective influence of the euro area and therefore the risks associated with euro area caucusing.”
...reforms to the euro area were creating a fluid institutional framework “and a number of pieces of evidence suggested that Treaty change is likely to be required to resolve these tensions.” ''
This is the point about negotiations - how the Eurozone and ever closer union affect us.
I think we can all see your pro EU bias shining through. Plus your eagerness with your prpopaganda to help UKIP
'but isn't it the case that the EFTA and through it the EEA already exists as an organisation that does exactly what you (and I) would want? It provides a trading bloc without the political involvement.'
With free movement of people being a key requirement for EFTA members.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/30704154
I note you are trying to be offensive and no doubt hoping I am upset, but as I am not particularly religious, and have never been to Church, you are wide of the mark.
You say "civil" discourse.. well the "civil" part of it to me is not rubbishing something that is close to someones heart, because one way or the other it doesn't stay civil for long
Libertarianism isn't about saying whatever you like, it is about saying whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt someone else, and so, painful and tiresome as it may be, consideration and judgement have to be used
Scot free: castles north of border to escape mansion tax, but London flats will have to pay
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/scot-free-castles-north-of-border-to-escape-mansion-tax-but-london-flats-will-have-to-pay-9964759.html