A breeze , far north was 3 figures. We had 80+ in south west
We had the highest England wind on Thursday on Great Dun Fell,just a few miles along the ridge from Cross Fell,from memory 104 MPH. About 5 miles from where I am posting.
Mr. JS: "...exulting in their democratic freedoms..."
Those bastards!
Mr. Divvie, the number of burnt witches is, I believe, grossly exaggerated. Similarly, the Inquisition (Spanish, not Dragon Age) was centuries ago. By that logic I could say that the Italians were a bit harsh, what with all their crucifying people and slavery.
I fail to see the relevance of comparing men of the 21st century with the violent doings of the 14th.
Quite. Like all civilizations ours will tend to overstate its inherent nobility at times as though it is something that has always been even when we are well aware of terrible deeds done by our ancestors, and it is also true we are not perfect today - but is it really so terrible to talk about our genuinely great traditions just because there were times we did not have such things?
On witch burning, talk of millions being killed as you sometimes see written is gross exaggeration, and my recollection is some of the facts are sometimes hijacked by people trying to draw larger themes about practitioners of herbal medicines, the outsider easily scapegoated and of course women. In fact the differences in how various nations acted during the witch hunting craze could be quite stark in terms of zeal, target and outcome - IIRC (it has been some years)in some places convicted witches were not always killed, and in some of the scandinavian states men were a higher proportion killed than women (something not true in almost all other places).
All in all though, the Dragon Age Inquisition was much more awesome, though to be honest I still don't really get why they called it that - the original 'Inquisition' mentioned in the thing does not seem to have had much of an Inquisitorial role either as we would understand it.
A dreadful letter to The Times, from Peter Temple-Morris
"Elements of the Press, exulting in their democratic freedoms, treat immigrants by our own standards and publish smug cartoons insulting all they have which is what they believe in. I do not take sides but we asked for trouble and we are getting it. If Jesus was portrayed in the way of these cartoons, I would hate it but I can take it. They can't."
The bleat of the coward and appeaser across the centuries.
Shocking. What's noticeable, over the last few days, is the number of characters with their own grievance agenda who've crawled out the woodwork with the 'I'm all for free speech but if we were a bit less beastly to begin with this sort of thing wouldn't happen' line. It's obvious what's going on: they're letting the Islamist murderers do their dirty work for them so they can eke out a little bit of censorship for their own world views later down the line. It's as craven as it is idiotic.
Mr. kle4, I was a little disappointed that they didn't opt for an earlier potential subtitle: Exarch. The Exarchs, of course, ran the two Exarchates, of Carthage and Rome/Italy, established by the Byzantine Empire during the reign of Justinian the Great.
A reputable source has told me that the only polling we are getting tonight will be the YouGov for the Sunday Times
OK, so we're digging in for a late one waiting for sign's from YouGov?
Coffee and Ferrero Rocher on stand-bye!
In the last few months of last year, the Sunday Times were publishing their YouGov around 9.30pm
That's not too bad...
Still have Ferrero Rocher left over from Christmas though and I suspect they will be gone by the time YouGov turns up...
I complained that I was paying £26 a month to subscribe to the Times and I needed by YouGov fix on Saturday night's and I couldn't wait until 6am on Sunday Morning's to see the results.
So you took on Rupert and won? Unlike Hacked Off and Red! :O
Nah, I love Rupert, it is thanks to him (and Chris Huhne) that I became Guest Editor of PB.
They put a word in with OGH for you?
When the Times went paywall, Mike emailed me asking me if I could email him the articles with the Populus phone polls for the Times and the YouGov for the Sunday Times.
Eventually I ended up emailing him other articles that might be of interest, the big one was the Sunday Times story about Chris Huhne and his speeding problem.
We ended up discussing the story and I gave my honest assessment that I couldn't post on PB (Huhne is as guilty and Ms Pryce must be the source and they both would end up getting charged and face prison time)
After that, we ended up chatting on a lot of things on a regular basis and then one day he asked me, he was going on holiday in a few months time, and would I like to edit the site.
Sounds like a letter to a porn mag
"One thing led to another and the next we knew we were exchanging phone calls of a more intense nature.. things progressed to their logical conclusion and just a week later we were lying down next to each other on a motel bed in a state of mutual bliss - exhausted after a weekend of intense polling..."
All the 'Snooper's Charter' will do is make the haystack of (useless) intelligence all the bigger.
Sadly it seems so. On such matters all the main parties will eventually fall into line, approving anything just in case as it were, so really the best that can be hoped for is whoever does it is the most competent at it I guess. In any case, I don't think there are many illusions that with or without laws, the intelligence agencies will do whatever they want, first claiming they don't, then that they do but it's legal, then that it's illegal but necessary, and then the cycle will start over again at some point. Out of the best of motivations, granted, but law or not they'll do what they feel they need.
A breeze , far north was 3 figures. We had 80+ in south west
We had the highest England wind on Thursday on Great Dun Fell,just a few miles along the ridge from Cross Fell,from memory 104 MPH. About 5 miles from where I am posting.
Calum MalcolmG Indigo (previous thread) Of course Scottish Tories will vote Labour in a constituency where the alternative is the SNP at Holyrood, while also voting Tory for the regional list, as they get in the habit they may well also start voting Labour at Westminster too to keep the SNP out
Is there any point voting tactically in the constituency component of the Scottish Parliament election? Doesn't the regional list component smooth everything out? An additional constituency seat for the SNP or Labour just means one less regional seat: no different in the total number of seats.
AMS is a nasty system with plenty of tactical voting opportunities. Yes, it can be worth voting tactically in a constituency, and it can be worth voting tactically on the list!
For example, in 2007 in Glasgow, if Sturgeon had not won Govan, the Greens would have lost their list seat (to the SNP). As it happens the Greens didn't contest the constituency, but if they had, it would have been logical for a Green voter to tactically vote for Sturgeon.
Similarly, it would have been sensible for a Green voter to vote Tory (!) in Pentlands in 2003...
Thanks. Yes. I can see how AMS can behave perversely (albeit not as perversely as FPTP, which is wearing a gimp mask and sitting in a bath of custard in comparison).
But are these real tactical voting opportunities? That is, do they rely on knowing the result? Would a voter beforehand, with the sort of polling data usually available, actually be able to make these rational judgements? Or would their best strategy, in the absence of knowing exactly how everyone will vote, have been to vote sincerely?
A reputable source has told me that the only polling we are getting tonight will be the YouGov for the Sunday Times
OK, so we're digging in for a late one waiting for sign's from YouGov?
Coffee and Ferrero Rocher on stand-bye!
In the last few months of last year, the Sunday Times were publishing their YouGov around 9.30pm
That's not too bad...
Still have Ferrero Rocher left over from Christmas though and I suspect they will be gone by the time YouGov turns up...
I complained that I was paying £26 a month to subscribe to the Times and I needed by YouGov fix on Saturday night's and I couldn't wait until 6am on Sunday Morning's to see the results.
So you took on Rupert and won? Unlike Hacked Off and Red! :O
Nah, I love Rupert, it is thanks to him (and Chris Huhne) that I became Guest Editor of PB.
They put a word in with OGH for you?
When the Times went paywall, Mike emailed me asking me if I could email him the articles with the Populus phone polls for the Times and the YouGov for the Sunday Times.
Eventually I ended up emailing him other articles that might be of interest, the big one was the Sunday Times story about Chris Huhne and his speeding problem.
We ended up discussing the story and I gave my honest assessment that I couldn't post on PB (Huhne is as guilty and Ms Pryce must be the source and they both would end up getting charged and face prison time)
After that, we ended up chatting on a lot of things on a regular basis and then one day he asked me, he was going on holiday in a few months time, and would I like to edit the site.
Sounds like a letter to a porn mag
"One thing led to another and the next we knew we were exchanging phone calls of a more intense nature.. things progressed to their logical conclusion and just a week later we were lying down next to each other on a motel bed in a state of mutual bliss - exhausted after a weekend of intense polling..."
A dreadful letter to The Times, from Peter Temple-Morris
"Elements of the Press, exulting in their democratic freedoms, treat immigrants by our own standards and publish smug cartoons insulting all they have which is what they believe in. I do not take sides but we asked for trouble and we are getting it. If Jesus was portrayed in the way of these cartoons, I would hate it but I can take it. They can't."
The bleat of the coward and appeaser across the centuries.
Shocking. What's noticeable, over the last few days, is the number of characters with their own grievance agenda who've crawled out the woodwork with the 'I'm all for free speech but if we were a bit less beastly to begin with this sort of thing wouldn't happen' line. It's obvious what's going on: they're letting the Islamist murderers do their dirty work for them so they can eke out a little bit of censorship for their own world views later down the line. It's as craven as it is idiotic.
Peter Temple-Morris Tony Barber Jon Snow redPenny
What do they have in common? ..... Dreadful lefties.
Mr. G, there is a badly designed tall building in Leeds (since modified) which effectively created a wind tunnel whenever there was a stiff breeze. It was enough to blow over several lorries, I believe.
Reminds me a bit of the solar death ray/Walkie-Talkie skyscraper in London.
Been horrendous here last two days, had every season today with very strong winds, it has howled last two nights , seriously bad weather.
The Almighty is punishing Scotland
He has been at it for a long time
PS Saw a programme today , Alan Titchmarsh on Britain , he said Ben Nevis started the size of Mount Everest but it has been weathered over the years and lost 26,000 odd feet or so , claimed Scotland had the most weather in the world and I would tend to agree. Som eof the debris did form the Pennines mind you.
A reputable source has told me that the only polling we are getting tonight will be the YouGov for the Sunday Times
OK, so we're digging in for a late one waiting for sign's from YouGov?
Coffee and Ferrero Rocher on stand-bye!
In the last few months of last year, the Sunday Times were publishing their YouGov around 9.30pm
That's not too bad...
Still have Ferrero Rocher left over from Christmas though and I suspect they will be gone by the time YouGov turns up...
I complained that I was paying £26 a month to subscribe to the Times and I needed by YouGov fix on Saturday night's and I couldn't wait until 6am on Sunday Morning's to see the results.
So you took on Rupert and won? Unlike Hacked Off and Red! :O
Nah, I love Rupert, it is thanks to him (and Chris Huhne) that I became Guest Editor of PB.
They put a word in with OGH for you?
When the Times went paywall, Mike emailed me asking me if I could email him the articles with the Populus phone polls for the Times and the YouGov for the Sunday Times.
Eventually I ended up emailing him other articles that might be of interest, the big one was the Sunday Times story about Chris Huhne and his speeding problem.
We ended up discussing the story and I gave my honest assessment that I couldn't post on PB (Huhne is as guilty and Ms Pryce must be the source and they both would end up getting charged and face prison time)
After that, we ended up chatting on a lot of things on a regular basis and then one day he asked me, he was going on holiday in a few months time, and would I like to edit the site.
So what your basically saying is that your entire life's success might not have happened if Chris Who hadn't put his foot down on the M25!¬ :O
Mr. kle4, I was a little disappointed that they didn't opt for an earlier potential subtitle: Exarch. The Exarchs, of course, ran the two Exarchates, of Carthage and Rome/Italy, established by the Byzantine Empire during the reign of Justinian the Great.
Hmm, from Wiki
An exarch /ˈɛksɑrk/ was a military governor within the Byzantine Empire and still is a high prelate in certain Christian churches.
an exarch was a governor with extended authority over a province at some distance from the capital
That actually would seem to fit the nature of the DA Inquisition quite a bit better, especially with it also having a connection to religion. I can understand them making the switch, Inquisition can sort of work, and is a much more familiar term, but given fake lore is one of the joys of Dragon Age, I'd have accepted Exarch easily. Fascinating stuff - this is why I love both history and fantasy literature, unknown and interesting worlds, be they historical or fantasy. It's why I find modern history duller by comparison.
A dreadful letter to The Times, from Peter Temple-Morris
"Elements of the Press, exulting in their democratic freedoms, treat immigrants by our own standards and publish smug cartoons insulting all they have which is what they believe in. I do not take sides but we asked for trouble and we are getting it. If Jesus was portrayed in the way of these cartoons, I would hate it but I can take it. They can't."
The bleat of the coward and appeaser across the centuries.
Shocking. What's noticeable, over the last few days, is the number of characters with their own grievance agenda who've crawled out the woodwork with the 'I'm all for free speech but if we were a bit less beastly to begin with this sort of thing wouldn't happen' line. It's obvious what's going on: they're letting the Islamist murderers do their dirty work for them so they can eke out a little bit of censorship for their own world views later down the line. It's as craven as it is idiotic.
The logic of your position is we carry on regardless throwing petrol on our own pyre.
In the hope of what?
They'll see sense, abandon Allah and Mohammed and embrace "democracy", atheism, consumerism, and the NWO?
Or increase their murderous rage at us, leading to us all living happily ever after...
A reputable source has told me that the only polling we are getting tonight will be the YouGov for the Sunday Times
OK, so we're digging in for a late one waiting for sign's from YouGov?
Coffee and Ferrero Rocher on stand-bye!
In the last few months of last year, the Sunday Times were publishing their YouGov around 9.30pm
That's not too bad...
Still have Ferrero Rocher left over from Christmas though and I suspect they will be gone by the time YouGov turns up...
I complained that I was paying £26 a month to subscribe to the Times and I needed by YouGov fix on Saturday night's and I couldn't wait until 6am on Sunday Morning's to see the results.
So you took on Rupert and won? Unlike Hacked Off and Red! :O
Nah, I love Rupert, it is thanks to him (and Chris Huhne) that I became Guest Editor of PB.
They put a word in with OGH for you?
When the Times went paywall, Mike emailed me asking me if I could email him the articles with the Populus phone polls for the Times and the YouGov for the Sunday Times.
Eventually I ended up emailing him other articles that might be of interest, the big one was the Sunday Times story about Chris Huhne and his speeding problem.
We ended up discussing the story and I gave my honest assessment that I couldn't post on PB (Huhne is as guilty and Ms Pryce must be the source and they both would end up getting charged and face prison time)
After that, we ended up chatting on a lot of things on a regular basis and then one day he asked me, he was going on holiday in a few months time, and would I like to edit the site.
So what your basically saying is that your entire life's success might not have happened if Chris Who hadn't put his foot down on the M25!¬ :O
Or his inability to keep the snake inside the pet store.
A dreadful letter to The Times, from Peter Temple-Morris
"Elements of the Press, exulting in their democratic freedoms, treat immigrants by our own standards and publish smug cartoons insulting all they have which is what they believe in. I do not take sides but we asked for trouble and we are getting it. If Jesus was portrayed in the way of these cartoons, I would hate it but I can take it. They can't."
The bleat of the coward and appeaser across the centuries.
Shocking. What's noticeable, over the last few days, is the number of characters with their own grievance agenda who've crawled out the woodwork with the 'I'm all for free speech but if we were a bit less beastly to begin with this sort of thing wouldn't happen' line. It's obvious what's going on: they're letting the Islamist murderers do their dirty work for them so they can eke out a little bit of censorship for their own world views later down the line. It's as craven as it is idiotic.
I would not be so harsh, but it has been somewhat shocking that with an issue that personally I see as entirely unambiguous people are seeking to make it a greyer issue, as though everyone would forget (or be allowed to forget) that we know we are not a perfect society and that in this complex world we have made negative impacts on many things. We know that, and I've not seen people in authority going nuts over things in overreaction either, we don't need to make things grey when plenty of other things already are.
It's adventurous of both Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson to advocate getting rid of any healthcare workers at present, given the current pressures on the health system. Still, we apparently live in an age where the best is allowed to be the enemy of the good in pursuit of votes.
The full Boris quotes were unlike Farage's.
Even the Guardian acknowledged that
He stopped short of echoing Farage’s suggestion that public service staff, particularly those working in the NHS, should show they can speak English. But Johnson said he was amazed by reports that some NHS staff could not make themselves understood in English.
"He stopped short of echoing Farage’s suggestion that public service staff, particularly those working in the NHS, should show they can speak English. But Johnson said he was amazed by reports that some NHS staff could not make themselves understood in English."
What a difference!
Personally I think there is a big difference -one proposes a solution to the problem, one huffs and puffs and is 'on our side' over it, but merely said 'I am sure NHS managers will be taking steps to sort it out'. Why is he sure? Why would they take any steps to sort it out when they haven't done so thus far?
A reputable source has told me that the only polling we are getting tonight will be the YouGov for the Sunday Times
OK, so we're digging in for a late one waiting for sign's from YouGov?
Coffee and Ferrero Rocher on stand-bye!
In the last few months of last year, the Sunday Times were publishing their YouGov around 9.30pm
That's not too bad...
Still have Ferrero Rocher left over from Christmas though and I suspect they will be gone by the time YouGov turns up...
I complained that I was paying £26 a month to subscribe to the Times and I needed by YouGov fix on Saturday night's and I couldn't wait until 6am on Sunday Morning's to see the results.
So you took on Rupert and won? Unlike Hacked Off and Red! :O
Nah, I love Rupert, it is thanks to him (and Chris Huhne) that I became Guest Editor of PB.
They put a word in with OGH for you?
When the Times went paywall, Mike emailed me asking me if I could email him the articles with the Populus phone polls for the Times and the YouGov for the Sunday Times.
Eventually I ended up emailing him other articles that might be of interest, the big one was the Sunday Times story about Chris Huhne and his speeding problem.
We ended up discussing the story and I gave my honest assessment that I couldn't post on PB (Huhne is as guilty and Ms Pryce must be the source and they both would end up getting charged and face prison time)
After that, we ended up chatting on a lot of things on a regular basis and then one day he asked me, he was going on holiday in a few months time, and would I like to edit the site.
Sounds like a letter to a porn mag
"One thing led to another and the next we knew we were exchanging phone calls of a more intense nature.. things progressed to their logical conclusion and just a week later we were lying down next to each other on a motel bed in a state of mutual bliss - exhausted after a weekend of intense polling..."
If the events had happened in Britain and there was a similar event then I suspect that Mr Farage would not be welcome.
Not sure why. His "fifth column" comments have attracted widespread criticism although, as far as I can see, they were completely justified.
Because he is the only party leader who dares say things that might upset anyone... and that makes him more like the general public than the others who only ever offer vacuous soundbites
So do you think that Hollande should be making political capital (by excluding FN from a day of unity) on the back of 17 death Frenchmen?
Mr. kle4, some see Tevinter as equivalent to Byzantium/Eastern Roman Empire.
Agree entirely that modern history is tedious by comparison to the ancient world. It's in the ancient world that we find the starkest contrast between civilisation and barbarity.
A dreadful letter to The Times, from Peter Temple-Morris
"Elements of the Press, exulting in their democratic freedoms, treat immigrants by our own standards and publish smug cartoons insulting all they have which is what they believe in. I do not take sides but we asked for trouble and we are getting it. If Jesus was portrayed in the way of these cartoons, I would hate it but I can take it. They can't."
The bleat of the coward and appeaser across the centuries.
Shocking. What's noticeable, over the last few days, is the number of characters with their own grievance agenda who've crawled out the woodwork with the 'I'm all for free speech but if we were a bit less beastly to begin with this sort of thing wouldn't happen' line. It's obvious what's going on: they're letting the Islamist murderers do their dirty work for them so they can eke out a little bit of censorship for their own world views later down the line. It's as craven as it is idiotic.
The logic of your position is we carry on regardless throwing petrol on our own pyre.
In the hope of what?
They'll see sense, abandon Allah and Mohammed and embrace "democracy", atheism, consumerism, and the NWO?
Or increase their murderous rage at us, leading to us all living happily ever after...
The logic of your position as that any lunatic with an agenda can abolish the expression of certain thoughts with threats and intimidation. If we cave in to the Islamist mob, I dread to think who'd draw inspiration and attempt to erect a few taboos of their own.
Rod/Bondegezou At Holyrood if a Tory voter lived in an SNP-Labour marginal it would make sense to vote Labour to deny the SNP the constituency seat, and then Tory on the regional list to deny the SNP the regional list seat too!
A dreadful letter to The Times, from Peter Temple-Morris
"Elements of the Press, exulting in their democratic freedoms, treat immigrants by our own standards and publish smug cartoons insulting all they have which is what they believe in. I do not take sides but we asked for trouble and we are getting it. If Jesus was portrayed in the way of these cartoons, I would hate it but I can take it. They can't."
The bleat of the coward and appeaser across the centuries.
Shocking. What's noticeable, over the last few days, is the number of characters with their own grievance agenda who've crawled out the woodwork with the 'I'm all for free speech but if we were a bit less beastly to begin with this sort of thing wouldn't happen' line. It's obvious what's going on: they're letting the Islamist murderers do their dirty work for them so they can eke out a little bit of censorship for their own world views later down the line. It's as craven as it is idiotic.
The logic of your position is we carry on regardless throwing petrol on our own pyre.
In the hope of what?
They'll see sense, abandon Allah and Mohammed and embrace "democracy", atheism, consumerism, and the NWO?
Or increase their murderous rage at us, leading to us all living happily ever after...
The utter madness of the pro mass immigration nutters
"it is like watching a nation, busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre"
If the events had happened in Britain and there was a similar event then I suspect that Mr Farage would not be welcome.
Not sure why. His "fifth column" comments have attracted widespread criticism although, as far as I can see, they were completely justified.
Because he is the only party leader who dares say things that might upset anyone... and that makes him more like the general public than the others who only ever offer vacuous soundbites
So do you think that Hollande should be making political capital (by excluding FN from a day of unity) on the back of 17 death Frenchmen?
A reputable source has told me that the only polling we are getting tonight will be the YouGov for the Sunday Times
OK, so we're digging in for a late one waiting for sign's from YouGov?
Coffee and Ferrero Rocher on stand-bye!
In the last few months of last year, the Sunday Times were publishing their YouGov around 9.30pm
That's not too bad...
Still have Ferrero Rocher left over from Christmas though and I suspect they will be gone by the time YouGov turns up...
I complained that I was paying £26 a month to subscribe to the Times and I needed by YouGov fix on Saturday night's and I couldn't wait until 6am on Sunday Morning's to see the results.
So you took on Rupert and won? Unlike Hacked Off and Red! :O
Nah, I love Rupert, it is thanks to him (and Chris Huhne) that I became Guest Editor of PB.
They put a word in with OGH for you?
When the Times went paywall, Mike emailed me asking me if I could email him the articles with the Populus phone polls for the Times and the YouGov for the Sunday Times.
Eventually I ended up emailing him other articles that might be of interest, the big one was the Sunday Times story about Chris Huhne and his speeding problem.
We ended up discussing the story and I gave my honest assessment that I couldn't post on PB (Huhne is as guilty and Ms Pryce must be the source and they both would end up getting charged and face prison time)
After that, we ended up chatting on a lot of things on a regular basis and then one day he asked me, he was going on holiday in a few months time, and would I like to edit the site.
So what your basically saying is that your entire life's success might not have happened if Chris Who hadn't put his foot down on the M25!¬ :O
A dreadful letter to The Times, from Peter Temple-Morris
"Elements of the Press, exulting in their democratic freedoms, treat immigrants by our own standards and publish smug cartoons insulting all they have which is what they believe in. I do not take sides but we asked for trouble and we are getting it. If Jesus was portrayed in the way of these cartoons, I would hate it but I can take it. They can't."
The bleat of the coward and appeaser across the centuries.
Shocking. What's noticeable, over the last few days, is the number of characters with their own grievance agenda who've crawled out the woodwork with the 'I'm all for free speech but if we were a bit less beastly to begin with this sort of thing wouldn't happen' line. It's obvious what's going on: they're letting the Islamist murderers do their dirty work for them so they can eke out a little bit of censorship for their own world views later down the line. It's as craven as it is idiotic.
The logic of your position is we carry on regardless throwing petrol on our own pyre.
In the hope of what?
They'll see sense, abandon Allah and Mohammed and embrace "democracy", atheism, consumerism, and the NWO?
Or increase their murderous rage at us, leading to us all living happily ever after...
The logic of your position as that any lunatic with an agenda can abolish the expression of certain thoughts with threats and intimidation. If we cave in to the Islamist mob, I dread to think who'd draw inspiration and attempt to erect a few taboos of their own.
What has changed in the last week regarding free speech and who publishes what?
Did the British press used to publish drawings of Mohammed, but have ceased to do so because of events in France?
A few flurries of snow today in the land of the Prince Bishops. Didn't stop us getting out for a walk, where we were treated to the site of a pair of bullfinches.
News full of Paris and weather equals one day fewer for the Tories to improve their position. Time is running out for the Bullington boys.</blockquote
As this dangerous climate is likely to continue to the election and beyond who do you think the country will look to to keep it safe - David Cameron or Ed Miliband
What happened to last nights YouGov? Searched all evening and failed to find.
No doubt I shall be one of 30 or so people who will tell you there isn't a YouGov published on Friday evenings. By the time this goes up, three or four will have beaten me to it.
It matters little...
My first chance to comment on the week's dreadful events in France and I've nothing to say. Far more erudite and eloquent people than I have said it and I can't compare. My only observation, based on my life in cosmopolitan East London, is the way culture is promulgated within the Islamic community. It seems interconnected with faith - cultural identity is derived from and re-enforced by religious identity.
British cultural identity isn't necessarily Christian though it's a part of it. None of that in any way condones, excuses or justifies the cold-blooded murders in France. Nor does it justify any extension of the State on the basis of fear or threat. Nor should it in any way be used as an excuse to restrict the freedom of speech on the basis of offence.
To offend (within the confines of slander and libel), and to be offended (ditto) is part and parcel of a free society. Evelyn Beatrice Hall put it best and that's a tough thing for liberal-minded people to remember and adhere to.
A dreadful letter to The Times, from Peter Temple-Morris
"Elements of the Press, exulting in their democratic freedoms, treat immigrants by our own standards and publish smug cartoons insulting all they have which is what they believe in. I do not take sides but we asked for trouble and we are getting it. If Jesus was portrayed in the way of these cartoons, I would hate it but I can take it. They can't."
The bleat of the coward and appeaser across the centuries.
Shocking. What's noticeable, over the last few days, is the number of characters with their own grievance agenda who've crawled out the woodwork with the 'I'm all for free speech but if we were a bit less beastly to begin with this sort of thing wouldn't happen' line. It's obvious what's going on: they're letting the Islamist murderers do their dirty work for them so they can eke out a little bit of censorship for their own world views later down the line. It's as craven as it is idiotic.
The logic of your position is we carry on regardless throwing petrol on our own pyre.
In the hope of what?
They'll see sense, abandon Allah and Mohammed and embrace "democracy", atheism, consumerism, and the NWO?
Or increase their murderous rage at us, leading to us all living happily ever after...
The logic of your position as that any lunatic with an agenda can abolish the expression of certain thoughts with threats and intimidation. If we cave in to the Islamist mob, I dread to think who'd draw inspiration and attempt to erect a few taboos of their own.
What has changed in the last week regarding free speech and who publishes what?
Did the British press used to publish drawings of Mohammed, but have ceased to do so because of events in France?
What happened to "Keep Calm and Carry On"?
What's happened is that censorship by murder hasn't been universally condemned. Instead, some in the West have actually hedged the issued: coming out with 'where there are rights there are responsibilities' and 'good manners cost nothing' claptrap - i.e. conceding that the adherents to a murderous and despotic creed might actually have a point.
A dreadful letter to The Times, from Peter Temple-Morris
"Elements of the Press, exulting in their democratic freedoms, treat immigrants by our own standards and publish smug cartoons insulting all they have which is what they believe in. I do not take sides but we asked for trouble and we are getting it. If Jesus was portrayed in the way of these cartoons, I would hate it but I can take it. They can't."
The bleat of the coward and appeaser across the centuries.
Shocking. What's noticeable, over the last few days, is the number of characters with their own grievance agenda who've crawled out the woodwork with the 'I'm all for free speech but if we were a bit less beastly to begin with this sort of thing wouldn't happen' line. It's obvious what's going on: they're letting the Islamist murderers do their dirty work for them so they can eke out a little bit of censorship for their own world views later down the line. It's as craven as it is idiotic.
The logic of your position is we carry on regardless throwing petrol on our own pyre.
In the hope of what?
They'll see sense, abandon Allah and Mohammed and embrace "democracy", atheism, consumerism, and the NWO?
Or increase their murderous rage at us, leading to us all living happily ever after...
The logic of your position as that any lunatic with an agenda can abolish the expression of certain thoughts with threats and intimidation. If we cave in to the Islamist mob, I dread to think who'd draw inspiration and attempt to erect a few taboos of their own.
What has changed in the last week regarding free speech and who publishes what?
Did the British press used to publish drawings of Mohammed, but have ceased to do so because of events in France?
What happened to "Keep Calm and Carry On"?
What's happened is that censorship by murder hasn't been universally condemned. Instead, some in the West have actually hedged the issued: coming out with 'where there are rights there are responsibilities' and 'good manners cost nothing' claptrap - i.e. conceding that the adherents to a murderous and despotic creed might actually have a point.
So nothings changed then.. except some reactionary fools now want the media to insult every muslim in the land in some kind of vanity project to make themselves look tough, and sleepwalk us into even more strife
I wanted to comment on the debate issue in the light of David's previous.
I don't have a huge problem with the Greens being in the debate - the painful truth for an LD like me is that however much I might wish it otherwise, the only two likely Prime Ministers after May 7th are David Cameron and Ed Miliband. As in the recent NZ election, the main debate was between John Key and David Cunliffe as leaders of the two main parties.
As with a few others, I think there's a place for a debate between the prospective Coalition partners and that very much includes the SNP as well as the DUP along with the LDs, UKIP, Greens and possibly others. The questions in that debate would be based around "who would you support" and "what would be the price of your support". It wouldn't of course prejudice what might happen after the election but might provide some clarity.
Stodge But crucially in New Zealand there was also a multi-leaders' debate with 8 minor party leaders, including the New Zealand Greens http://tvnz.co.nz/vote-2014/debates
Mr. Isam, I've posted a fair bit on the self-censorship over the Jesus and Mo cartoons.
I'm not sure that "We had self-censorship before, and have it now" is very reassuring.
Edited extra bit: cut an errant 'as' so it makes sense.
If they want to have a go at the terrorists, I am sure there are ways of insulting them without offending the 5 million muslims living in the UK
Make fun/draw cartoons of ISIS/Bin Laden/Jihadi John whatever.. but reproducing images which offend peaceful and violent muslims alike is the way to more division, which is the terrorists aim
Even seen The Godfather? Remember how they got Sonny?
I wanted to comment on the debate issue in the light of David's previous.
I don't have a huge problem with the Greens being in the debate - the painful truth for an LD like me is that however much I might wish it otherwise, the only two likely Prime Ministers after May 7th are David Cameron and Ed Miliband. As in the recent NZ election, the main debate was between John Key and David Cunliffe as leaders of the two main parties.
As with a few others, I think there's a place for a debate between the prospective Coalition partners and that very much includes the SNP as well as the DUP along with the LDs, UKIP, Greens and possibly others. The questions in that debate would be based around "who would you support" and "what would be the price of your support". It wouldn't of course prejudice what might happen after the election but might provide some clarity.
Mr. Isam, yes, they drew a cartoon poking fun at Italians.
I do not believe that Islamic rules should apply to those of us who aren't Muslims. I don't try and impose my own beliefs on other people.
Freedom of speech without the freedom to offend is an oxymoron because you hand the power to limit the boundaries of 'acceptable' speech to the violently over-sensitive. My free speech should not depend on whether someone else is a delicate little flower, or a potential murderer.
I'm off for a bit now (not sure if I'll be back on later).
Mr. Isam, I've posted a fair bit on the self-censorship over the Jesus and Mo cartoons.
I'm not sure that "We had self-censorship before, and have it now" is very reassuring.
Edited extra bit: cut an errant 'as' so it makes sense.
If they want to have a go at the terrorists, I am sure there are ways of insulting them without offending the 5 million muslims living in the UK
Make fun/draw cartoons of ISIS/Bin Laden/Jihadi John whatever.. but reproducing images which offend peaceful and violent muslims alike is the way to more division, which is the terrorists aim
Even seen The Godfather? Remember how they got Sonny?
Publishing the cartoons as part of the news story is not gratuitous and in addition the cartoon they published featured the head of ISIL I believe and not mohammed so no reason it would offend the 5 million muslims
Not publishing something pertinent to a major story is self censorship and prompted by cowardice. It sends only one message "You have intimidated us"
Mr. Isam, I've posted a fair bit on the self-censorship over the Jesus and Mo cartoons.
I'm not sure that "We had self-censorship before, and have it now" is very reassuring.
Edited extra bit: cut an errant 'as' so it makes sense.
If they want to have a go at the terrorists, I am sure there are ways of insulting them without offending the 5 million muslims living in the UK
Make fun/draw cartoons of ISIS/Bin Laden/Jihadi John whatever.. but reproducing images which offend peaceful and violent muslims alike is the way to more division, which is the terrorists aim
Even seen The Godfather? Remember how they got Sonny?
Your squalid pandering to the sensitivities of religious fundamentalists is as tragic as it demeaning.
A dreadful letter to The Times, from Peter Temple-Morris
"Elements of the Press, exulting in their democratic freedoms, treat immigrants by our own standards and publish smug cartoons insulting all they have which is what they believe in. I do not take sides but we asked for trouble and we are getting it. If Jesus was portrayed in the way of these cartoons, I would hate it but I can take it. They can't."
The bleat of the coward and appeaser across the centuries.
Shocking. What's noticeable, over the last few days, is the number of characters with their own grievance agenda who've crawled out the woodwork with the 'I'm all for free speech but if we were a bit less beastly to begin with this sort of thing wouldn't happen' line. It's obvious what's going on: they're letting the Islamist murderers do their dirty work for them so they can eke out a little bit of censorship for their own world views later down the line. It's as craven as it is idiotic.
The logic of your position is we carry on regardless throwing petrol on our own pyre.
In the hope of what?
They'll see sense, abandon Allah and Mohammed and embrace "democracy", atheism, consumerism, and the NWO?
Or increase their murderous rage at us, leading to us all living happily ever after...
The logic of your position as that any lunatic with an agenda can abolish the expression of certain thoughts with threats and intimidation. If we cave in to the Islamist mob, I dread to think who'd draw inspiration and attempt to erect a few taboos of their own.
What has changed in the last week regarding free speech and who publishes what?
Did the British press used to publish drawings of Mohammed, but have ceased to do so because of events in France?
What happened to "Keep Calm and Carry On"?
What's happened is that censorship by murder hasn't been universally condemned. Instead, some in the West have actually hedged the issued: coming out with 'where there are rights there are responsibilities' and 'good manners cost nothing' claptrap - i.e. conceding that the adherents to a murderous and despotic creed might actually have a point.
So nothings changed then.. except some reactionary fools now want the media to insult every muslim in the land in some kind of vanity project to make themselves look tough, and sleepwalk us into even more strife
Canny tactics
I don't want to insult every Muslim. I just don't accept that Muslims, hardline or not, are entitled to define what is reasonable speech for the rest of us who are not Muslims.
"Hacker group Anonymous 'declare war on jihadists' after Charlie Hebdo massacre by pledging to target terrorists on social media
* The hacking group have condemned the Paris massacre which killed 12 * Anonymous has now released a video 'declaring war' against terrorists * Pledged to close jihadi social network accounts to avenge those murdered"
I always want American politics to be as exciting as 'The West Wing', 2008 was interesting but since then it's fallen flat. Romney repeat? Bush Redux? Return of the Clintons?
A dreadful letter to The Times, from Peter Temple-Morris
"Elements of the Press, exulting in their democratic freedoms, treat immigrants by our own standards and publish smug cartoons insulting all they have which is what they believe in. I do not take sides but we asked for trouble and we are getting it. If Jesus was portrayed in the way of these cartoons, I would hate it but I can take it. They can't."
The bleat of the coward and appeaser across the centuries.
Shocking. What's noticeable, over the last few days, is the number of characters with their own grievance agenda who've crawled out the woodwork with the 'I'm all for free speech but if we were a bit less beastly to begin with this sort of thing wouldn't happen' line. It's obvious what's going on: they're letting the Islamist murderers do their dirty work for them so they can eke out a little bit of censorship for their own world views later down the line. It's as craven as it is idiotic.
The logic of your position is we carry on regardless throwing petrol on our own pyre.
In the hope of what?
They'll see sense, abandon Allah and Mohammed and embrace "democracy", atheism, consumerism, and the NWO?
Or increase their murderous rage at us, leading to us all living happily ever after...
The logic of your position as that any lunatic with an agenda can abolish the expression of certain thoughts with threats and intimidation.
Wake up! We've already capitulated that years ago. To the Left, who got us into this mess, with their mental illness of political correctness, Newspeak, race laws, hate laws, positive discrimination and all their other insidious works.
If we cave in to the Islamist mob, I dread to think who'd draw inspiration and attempt to erect a few taboos of their own.
We don't have to cave in. We have to find a way to agree to differ, but to do that first we have to acknowledge that we are very different, and state unequivocally that their way of life is not for us, and of course, vice versa...
We don't have to cave in. We have to find a way to agree to differ, but to do that first we have to acknowledge that we are very different, and state unequivocally that their way of life is not for us, and of course, vice versa...
Where our way of life conflicts with theirs it has to be clear that our way of life wins. If they don't want to accept that then they should go somewhere that doesn't conflict. We certainly should not accept that we should change our ways to fit in with them. That goes for any grouping whether ethnic, religous or whatever
A dreadful letter to The Times, from Peter Temple-Morris
"Elements of the Press, exulting in their democratic freedoms, treat immigrants by our own standards and publish smug cartoons insulting all they have which is what they believe in. I do not take sides but we asked for trouble and we are getting it. If Jesus was portrayed in the way of these cartoons, I would hate it but I can take it. They can't."
The bleat of the coward and appeaser across the centuries.
Shocking. What's noticeable, over the last few days, is the number of characters with their own grievance agenda who've crawled out the woodwork with the 'I'm all for free speech but if we were a bit less beastly to begin with this sort of thing wouldn't happen' line. It's obvious what's going on: they're letting the Islamist murderers do their dirty work for them so they can eke out a little bit of censorship for their own world views later down the line. It's as craven as it is idiotic.
The logic of your position is we carry on regardless throwing petrol on our own pyre.
In the hope of what?
They'll see sense, abandon Allah and Mohammed and embrace "democracy", atheism, consumerism, and the NWO?
Or increase their murderous rage at us, leading to us all living happily ever after...
The logic of your position as that any lunatic with an agenda can abolish the expression of certain thoughts with threats and intimidation.
Wake up! We've already capitulated that years ago. To the Left, who got us into this mess, with their mental illness of political correctness, Newspeak, race laws, hate laws, positive discrimination and all their other insidious works.
If we cave in to the Islamist mob, I dread to think who'd draw inspiration and attempt to erect a few taboos of their own.
We don't have to cave in. We have to find a way to agree to differ, but to do that first we have to acknowledge that we are very different, and state unequivocally that their way of life is not for us, and of course, vice versa...
I agree. The "right to be comfortable" has to kicked into the dustbin of history. Every law banning "incitement to hatred" should be repealed.
If the followers of the prophet are able to propose death to apostates and non believers, then I think it is close to human nature for those apostates and non believers to feel an urge to express a view of the prophet that is couched in derogatory terms.
Mr. Isam, yes, they drew a cartoon poking fun at Italians.
I do not believe that Islamic rules should apply to those of us who aren't Muslims. I don't try and impose my own beliefs on other people.
Freedom of speech without the freedom to offend is an oxymoron because you hand the power to limit the boundaries of 'acceptable' speech to the violently over-sensitive. My free speech should not depend on whether someone else is a delicate little flower, or a potential murderer.
I'm off for a bit now (not sure if I'll be back on later).
Mr Dancer, they even drew a cartoon poking fun at us:
Mr. Isam, I've posted a fair bit on the self-censorship over the Jesus and Mo cartoons.
I'm not sure that "We had self-censorship before, and have it now" is very reassuring.
Edited extra bit: cut an errant 'as' so it makes sense.
If they want to have a go at the terrorists, I am sure there are ways of insulting them without offending the 5 million muslims living in the UK
Make fun/draw cartoons of ISIS/Bin Laden/Jihadi John whatever.. but reproducing images which offend peaceful and violent muslims alike is the way to more division, which is the terrorists aim
Even seen The Godfather? Remember how they got Sonny?
Your squalid pandering to the sensitivities of religious fundamentalists is as tragic as it demeaning.
Rod/Bondegezou At Holyrood if a Tory voter lived in an SNP-Labour marginal it would make sense to vote Labour to deny the SNP the constituency seat, and then Tory on the regional list to deny the SNP the regional list seat too!
Most of the time, denying the SNP a constituency seat merely means they get one more regional seat, and getting one more constituency seat means you get one less regional seat. The total number of seats isn't (usually) affected. So you might as well vote Tory in the constituency vote, or for whichever person you think will be most effective regardless of party affiliation.
PS Saw a programme today , Alan Titchmarsh on Britain , he said Ben Nevis started the size of Mount Everest but it has been weathered over the years and lost 26,000 odd feet or so , claimed Scotland had the most weather in the world and I would tend to agree. Som eof the debris did form the Pennines mind you.
"They may take our mountain but they will never take our freedom!"
Mr. Isam, I've posted a fair bit on the self-censorship over the Jesus and Mo cartoons.
I'm not sure that "We had self-censorship before, and have it now" is very reassuring.
Edited extra bit: cut an errant 'as' so it makes sense.
If they want to have a go at the terrorists, I am sure there are ways of insulting them without offending the 5 million muslims living in the UK
Make fun/draw cartoons of ISIS/Bin Laden/Jihadi John whatever.. but reproducing images which offend peaceful and violent muslims alike is the way to more division, which is the terrorists aim
Even seen The Godfather? Remember how they got Sonny?
Let's net off from that 5 million: The actual terrorists Those who condone, support, encourage and recruit the terrorists Those who would like to be in category a or b but for one reason or another don't quite make it Professional offendees and, separately, Those who privately think the faith imposed on them by those with the power to impose it on them is a load of contemptible bollocks and would rather, frinstance, not spend their teens and twenties dressed in a black bin liner.
I'm not sure you are left with enough people to worry about.
Isam and Rod C will correct me if I'm wrong, but what I think they're arguing is that if the basic principles of one's society are atheism and consumerism, you'd better not allow people to immigrate whose basic principles are radically different. And, you shouldn't complain if they follow their principles through to their logical outcome.
Latest from CNN - Terror sleeper cells activated in France - Has anyone thought how this may dominate the media for months and much more and what effect it will have on 2015 GE
Isam and Rod C will correct me if I'm wrong, but what I think they're arguing is that if the basic principles of one's society are atheism and consumerism, you'd better not allow people to immigrate whose basic principles are radically different. And, you shouldn't complain if they follow their principles through to their logical outcome.
Atheism isn't a basic principle of our society, given we have Spiritual Peers.
Isam and Rod C will correct me if I'm wrong, but what I think they're arguing is that if the basic principles of one's society are atheism and consumerism, you'd better not allow people to immigrate whose basic principles are radically different. And, you shouldn't complain if they follow their principles through to their logical outcome.
It's not rocket science.
Hedonists would not feel comfortable under Sharia Law, I guess, and would head for Acapulco rather than Algiers...
Just providing some facts (albeit nearly four years out of date - which makes me feel old as I worked on the 2011 Census).
I never worked on population predictions at ONS but I think it's fair to say that the proportion of the population that are Muslim will continue to increase in the years ahead.
Isam and Rod C will correct me if I'm wrong, but what I think they're arguing is that if the basic principles of one's society are atheism and consumerism, you'd better not allow people to immigrate whose basic principles are radically different. And, you shouldn't complain if they follow their principles through to their logical outcome.
If that is what they're (rather clumsily) suggesting then it's utter drivel. No one's demanding that anyone partake in any atheism or consumerism - merely not murder anyone who does. If the basic tenet of 'live and let live' is up for discussion then civilization is well and truly f*cked.
UKIP gaining equally at the expense of other parties sounds like "don't know" voters making their minds up, rather than switching, but we'll find out tomorrow...
Mr. Isam, I've posted a fair bit on the self-censorship over the Jesus and Mo cartoons.
I'm not sure that "We had self-censorship before, and have it now" is very reassuring.
Edited extra bit: cut an errant 'as' so it makes sense.
If they want to have a go at the terrorists, I am sure there are ways of insulting them without offending the 5 million muslims living in the UK
Make fun/draw cartoons of ISIS/Bin Laden/Jihadi John whatever.. but reproducing images which offend peaceful and violent muslims alike is the way to more division, which is the terrorists aim
Even seen The Godfather? Remember how they got Sonny?
Your squalid pandering to the sensitivities of religious fundamentalists is as tragic as it demeaning.
No one is ''pandering to the sensitivities of religious fundamentalists'' - the weakness of your argument is made clear by the way you misrepresent. Muslim religious leaders all over the world have condemned the attacks. Any muslim you care to point a camera at condemns the attacks. More than that they say there is no excuse in quoting Islam as a reason - the leading UK muslim says Mohamed would condemn using his name as a reason.
The vast majority of people killed by muslim terrorists are other muslims.
Here we are with these people finally - as if we needed a 'finally' - exposing their nazi tendencies to everyone and people like you step up to the plate to dance to their tune Keep it up because as long as you continue in the vein you do then the terrorists are winning.
PS Saw a programme today , Alan Titchmarsh on Britain , he said Ben Nevis started the size of Mount Everest but it has been weathered over the years and lost 26,000 odd feet or so , claimed Scotland had the most weather in the world and I would tend to agree. Som eof the debris did form the Pennines mind you.
"They may take our mountain but they will never take our freedom!"
Typical Journalists - making a molehill out of a mountain.
If the fieldwork was done during the Labour/ BBC blitz on the NHS this cannot be good news for Miliband. Maybe regarding it as weaponised (and whatever Dianne Abbott said) has resulted in them shooting themselves in the foot in more ways than one.
Comments
On witch burning, talk of millions being killed as you sometimes see written is gross exaggeration, and my recollection is some of the facts are sometimes hijacked by people trying to draw larger themes about practitioners of herbal medicines, the outsider easily scapegoated and of course women. In fact the differences in how various nations acted during the witch hunting craze could be quite stark in terms of zeal, target and outcome - IIRC (it has been some years)in some places convicted witches were not always killed, and in some of the scandinavian states men were a higher proportion killed than women (something not true in almost all other places).
All in all though, the Dragon Age Inquisition was much more awesome, though to be honest I still don't really get why they called it that - the original 'Inquisition' mentioned in the thing does not seem to have had much of an Inquisitorial role either as we would understand it.
"One thing led to another and the next we knew we were exchanging phone calls of a more intense nature.. things progressed to their logical conclusion and just a week later we were lying down next to each other on a motel bed in a state of mutual bliss - exhausted after a weekend of intense polling..."
But are these real tactical voting opportunities? That is, do they rely on knowing the result? Would a voter beforehand, with the sort of polling data usually available, actually be able to make these rational judgements? Or would their best strategy, in the absence of knowing exactly how everyone will vote, have been to vote sincerely?
Tony Barber
Jon Snow
redPenny
What do they have in common? ..... Dreadful lefties.
Reminds me a bit of the solar death ray/Walkie-Talkie skyscraper in London.
PS Saw a programme today , Alan Titchmarsh on Britain , he said Ben Nevis started the size of Mount Everest but it has been weathered over the years and lost 26,000 odd feet or so , claimed Scotland had the most weather in the world and I would tend to agree. Som eof the debris did form the Pennines mind you.
An exarch /ˈɛksɑrk/ was a military governor within the Byzantine Empire and still is a high prelate in certain Christian churches.
an exarch was a governor with extended authority over a province at some distance from the capital
That actually would seem to fit the nature of the DA Inquisition quite a bit better, especially with it also having a connection to religion. I can understand them making the switch, Inquisition can sort of work, and is a much more familiar term, but given fake lore is one of the joys of Dragon Age, I'd have accepted Exarch easily. Fascinating stuff - this is why I love both history and fantasy literature, unknown and interesting worlds, be they historical or fantasy. It's why I find modern history duller by comparison.
In the hope of what?
They'll see sense, abandon Allah and Mohammed and embrace "democracy", atheism, consumerism, and the NWO?
Or increase their murderous rage at us, leading to us all living happily ever after...
It is the butterfly effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
http://ericavebury.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/my-dads-1937-bugatti.html
Think carefully.
Agree entirely that modern history is tedious by comparison to the ancient world. It's in the ancient world that we find the starkest contrast between civilisation and barbarity.
Once the election campaign starts, I suspect they will.
OGH Perhaps he is a unionist!
"it is like watching a nation, busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre"
Would Nigel be welcomed in Paris tomorrow?
Type carefully
Did the British press used to publish drawings of Mohammed, but have ceased to do so because of events in France?
What happened to "Keep Calm and Carry On"?
It matters little...
My first chance to comment on the week's dreadful events in France and I've nothing to say. Far more erudite and eloquent people than I have said it and I can't compare. My only observation, based on my life in cosmopolitan East London, is the way culture is promulgated within the Islamic community. It seems interconnected with faith - cultural identity is derived from and re-enforced by religious identity.
British cultural identity isn't necessarily Christian though it's a part of it. None of that in any way condones, excuses or justifies the cold-blooded murders in France. Nor does it justify any extension of the State on the basis of fear or threat. Nor should it in any way be used as an excuse to restrict the freedom of speech on the basis of offence.
To offend (within the confines of slander and libel), and to be offended (ditto) is part and parcel of a free society. Evelyn Beatrice Hall put it best and that's a tough thing for liberal-minded people to remember and adhere to.
The election campaign proper starts end of March.
Canny tactics
I'm not sure that "We had self-censorship before, and have it now" is very reassuring.
Edited extra bit: cut an errant 'as' so it makes sense.
I don't have a huge problem with the Greens being in the debate - the painful truth for an LD like me is that however much I might wish it otherwise, the only two likely Prime Ministers after May 7th are David Cameron and Ed Miliband. As in the recent NZ election, the main debate was between John Key and David Cunliffe as leaders of the two main parties.
As with a few others, I think there's a place for a debate between the prospective Coalition partners and that very much includes the SNP as well as the DUP along with the LDs, UKIP, Greens and possibly others. The questions in that debate would be based around "who would you support" and "what would be the price of your support". It wouldn't of course prejudice what might happen after the election but might provide some clarity.
http://tvnz.co.nz/vote-2014/debates
Make fun/draw cartoons of ISIS/Bin Laden/Jihadi John whatever.. but reproducing images which offend peaceful and violent muslims alike is the way to more division, which is the terrorists aim
Even seen The Godfather? Remember how they got Sonny?
http://centrallobby.politicshome.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/nhs-billions-wasted-on-compensation/
"the NHS has potential liabilities of £25.6bn, and that clinical negligence claims inflation is rising at 10% each year"
I do not believe that Islamic rules should apply to those of us who aren't Muslims. I don't try and impose my own beliefs on other people.
Freedom of speech without the freedom to offend is an oxymoron because you hand the power to limit the boundaries of 'acceptable' speech to the violently over-sensitive. My free speech should not depend on whether someone else is a delicate little flower, or a potential murderer.
I'm off for a bit now (not sure if I'll be back on later).
Not publishing something pertinent to a major story is self censorship and prompted by cowardice. It sends only one message "You have intimidated us"
"Hacker group Anonymous 'declare war on jihadists' after Charlie Hebdo massacre by pledging to target terrorists on social media
* The hacking group have condemned the Paris massacre which killed 12
* Anonymous has now released a video 'declaring war' against terrorists
* Pledged to close jihadi social network accounts to avenge those murdered"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2904637/Hacker-group-Anonymous-declare-war-jihadists-Charlie-Hebdo-massacre-pledging-target-terrorists-social-media.html
meanwhile the state looks on impotently......
I always want American politics to be as exciting as 'The West Wing', 2008 was interesting but since then it's fallen flat.
Romney repeat?
Bush Redux?
Return of the Clintons?
'If they want to have a go at the terrorists, I am sure there are ways of insulting them without offending the 5 million muslims living in the UK '
It's called freedom of speech or what's left of it.
The minority fit in with the majority and not the reverse,if they don't like it they are free to leave at any time.
I agree. The "right to be comfortable" has to kicked into the dustbin of history. Every law banning "incitement to hatred" should be repealed.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/12/16/1324038811554/The-cover-of--December-20-001.jpg
The actual terrorists
Those who condone, support, encourage and recruit the terrorists
Those who would like to be in category a or b but for one reason or another don't quite make it
Professional offendees
and, separately,
Those who privately think the faith imposed on them by those with the power to impose it on them is a load of contemptible bollocks and would rather, frinstance, not spend their teens and twenties dressed in a black bin liner.
I'm not sure you are left with enough people to worry about.
2.8 million in the 2011 census it says on teh interwebs.
For the record in 2011, there were around 2.8 million Muslims in the UK
http://newsthump.com/2015/01/09/david-cameron-insists-pre-election-debates-must-include-a-bake-off/
(tips fedora)
Peach Miliband?
Cleggs Benedict?
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=69D0560CC54123FE!516&authkey=!AD78XovA0uJ86W4&ithint=file,xlsx
They make up a larger share of children.
CON 32%, LAB 32%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 18%, GRN 6%
Hedonists would not feel comfortable under Sharia Law, I guess, and would head for Acapulco rather than Algiers...
I never worked on population predictions at ONS but I think it's fair to say that the proportion of the population that are Muslim will continue to increase in the years ahead.
The Conservatives are seen as slightly more likely than Labour to be the largest party, 42% to 35%
52% would like one of the parties to win an overall majority, 24% would prefer a hung parliament
47% think government's cuts have gone too far, 37% say balance right; 15% think they've not gone far enough
58% think the pledges Labour have made mean they would end up having to increase taxes on people like them
Muslim religious leaders all over the world have condemned the attacks. Any muslim you care to point a camera at condemns the attacks. More than that they say there is no excuse in quoting Islam as a reason - the leading UK muslim says Mohamed would condemn using his name as a reason.
The vast majority of people killed by muslim terrorists are other muslims.
Here we are with these people finally - as if we needed a 'finally' - exposing their nazi tendencies to everyone and people like you step up to the plate to dance to their tune Keep it up because as long as you continue in the vein you do then the terrorists are winning.
I'm expecting they'll be published later on this evening.
The YouGov approach is to start publishing their stories online between 9pm and 1am
15% say their local GP service has got better, 34% worse, 40% that is has stayed about the same
49% of people say they are normally able to get an appointment when they need one, 36% that they are often unable to
8% say they have had to go to A&E when they were unable to get a GP appointment
Very encouraging for Con given mini bounce in lead pre Christmas and all of the focus on the NHS this week - Lab's strongest card.