My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")
Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?
I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.
I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).
Would that help?
Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:
"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"
Well, the Middle East is a very ancient place. They were literate, and discussing religion and philosophy while we were running round bare-arsed.
"Will God be angry if I choose the wrong religion?"
Ouch.
I've gone with. "Julia, no one knows if God exists and that's something you have to choose for yourself. If you treat others as you'd like to be treated yourself you'll probably do OK. Now, if you go to bed now you can read Harry Potter for 20 minutes before I call lights out."
"OK dad!"
"If you treat others as you'd like to be treated yourself you'll probably do OK"
So Christian teaching then.
No. The Golden Rule is at the heart of most religions.
My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")
Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?
I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.
I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).
Would that help?
Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:
"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"
ALL the religions?
Even Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Confucianism and Shintoism?
I attended a Cultural Awareness course a year or so ago, and upon hearing about my agnostic/atheist views, the representatives of the various faiths light heartedly tried a sales pitch to try and convert me to their chosen religion. I have to say that Buddhism was the most appealing, but the lack of bacon sarnies was the deal breaker.
I'd like Judaism - for the mothering and arguments round the dinner table; Catholicism - because it allows you to sin to your heart's content and, if you're into guilt and stuff, you get bloody good novels and art out of it; and Islam for the wonderful architecture, calligraphy and tiles. Plus Hinduism for the sex (though maybe the Kama Sutra isn't a religious book!)
And a bit of Buddhism for when you need time out.
I'm liking Jediism for the mind control stuff, so I can bamboozle the wife "These aren't the shoes you're looking for. Buy the cheaper ones".
Not even a Jedi can control a woman when it comes to shoes. Sorry.
Plus its only weak minds that they can control, so good luck with that one.
Try Taoism; all the fun of Buddhism but without the dietary requirements.
They are vegetarians, aren't they?
Only in as much as some Anglicans are vegetarian. If you are trying to follow a life of simplicity and harmony, dealing with life and people as they are, then eating meat could be considered as unhelpful, but it certainly isn't proscribed.
According to the Times, the main reason Brussels are playing hardball over this "renegotiation" is because they don't want to encourage referendums in other countries.
President Hollande of France is angry at the precedent taken by Marine Le Pen, the leader of the far-right National Front. “Members of the French government refer to Cameron as the British ‘Marine Le Pen’,” a diplomat said.
The Pastafarian conception of Heaven includes a beer volcano and a stripper (or sometimes prostitute) factory.[35] The Pastafarian Hell is similar, except that the beer is stale and the strippers have sexually transmitted diseases.[37]
According to the Times, the main reason Brussels are playing hardball over this "renegotiation" is because they don't want to encourage referendums in other countries.
President Hollande of France is angry at the precedent taken by Marine Le Pen, the leader of the far-right National Front. “Members of the French government refer to Cameron as the British ‘Marine Le Pen’,” a diplomat said.
Try Taoism; all the fun of Buddhism but without the dietary requirements.
They are vegetarians, aren't they?
Only in as much as some Anglicans are vegetarian. If you are trying to follow a life of simplicity and harmony, dealing with life and people as they are, then eating meat could be considered as unhelpful, but it certainly isn't proscribed.
Being an Anglican (or Episcopalian) is great - it doesn't really matter what you believe, as long as you're not too fervent about it.
I disagree. Get good people with good judgment, train them well, make clear what your boundaries are, trust them, stand behind them when they make errors so that they and you learn, be available for help and advice and be trustworthy in your turn and you can - and should - let them get on with it.
Maybe it's easier for me, doing what I do and with the team I've built.
What sort of work, if you don't mind me asking, do you do with your agencies?
Tell people what to do and how to do it, and the best you'll get is grudging compliance. Teach them how to solve problems, get them to agree to the goal and buy into 'how we do things around here' and you can both let them get on with it and reap the rewards of higher productivity and innovation.
According to the Times, the main reason Brussels are playing hardball over this "renegotiation" is because they don't want to encourage referendums in other countries.
President Hollande of France is angry at the precedent taken by Marine Le Pen, the leader of the far-right National Front. “Members of the French government refer to Cameron as the British ‘Marine Le Pen’,” a diplomat said.
Actually the British are very adept at producing religious sects. Once you have split once then it is perfectly reasonable to split again.
I think it was Napoleon who described England disparagingly as a country with more religions than sauces!
Though political ideas were often expressed in religious language in the past here, as they still are in many parts of the world. Corbyn is a Puritan at heart, convinced of his countries Original Sin.
I think the division into Roundheads and Cavaliers is a pretty good way of assessing people and politicians in Britain even now.
Roundheads think they know best how to live their life and how everyone else should live their life.
Cavaliers are busy living and enjoying living.
Corbyn is a Roundhead.
I think it's more complex. Charles II cultivated the image of the Merry Monarch. But, he was a ruthless and vindictive man, who made it his life's work to hunt down the Regicides.
I'm not being entirely serious! And I'm rather using the division to describe people now.
A bit more seriously, there is a division between those who want to tell people what to do and how to do it and those who are inclined to let people get on with it provided they don't frighten the horses. Too much control, too much trying to control will drive you mad.
The difference is that the Cavaliers wanted to tell you what to do. You had to conform to the Kings form of worship, using his approved prayers. The Dissenters thought differently.
Just because the rich tell you how to think and how to live does not make it right. The Dissenters were a frenzy of better ways to tackle life. My heart lies with the Diggers, Levellers and Ranters.
And ultimately it was the oppressive power of the Parliamentary army that crushed free thought and brought back the monarchy.
Mark Field really is ghastly. I note Hague has surprise surprise turned all Foreign Office as well - what a fraud he is.
Calling honourable men who happen to disagree with you 'frauds' - especially those who, like Hague, are famous for being right - is extremely counter-productive.
Oh give it a rest fgs. You call other figures lunatics, charlatans, etc. all over the shop. Then when someone impugns the integrity of (shock horror) a member of the cabinet, you come on like a disapproving Great Aunt, chiding the offenders more in sorrow than anger. It's ridiculous.
No, you give it a rest fgs. The plain fact is you are a nutjob who makes it up as he goes along. You will be guaranteed never to face up against reality. Just sticking to your fantasy world is easier and safer.
According to the Times, the main reason Brussels are playing hardball over this "renegotiation" is because they don't want to encourage referendums in other countries.
President Hollande of France is angry at the precedent taken by Marine Le Pen, the leader of the far-right National Front. “Members of the French government refer to Cameron as the British ‘Marine Le Pen’,” a diplomat said.
I disagree. Get good people with good judgment, train them well, make clear what your boundaries are, trust them, stand behind them when they make errors so that they and you learn, be available for help and advice and be trustworthy in your turn and you can - and should - let them get on with it.
Maybe it's easier for me, doing what I do and with the team I've built.
What sort of work, if you don't mind me asking, do you do with your agencies?
Tell people what to do and how to do it, and the best you'll get is grudging compliance. Teach them how to solve problems, get them to agree to the goal and buy into 'how we do things around here' and you can both let them get on with it and reap the rewards of higher productivity and innovation.
I miss Sir Terry.
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Try Taoism; all the fun of Buddhism but without the dietary requirements.
They are vegetarians, aren't they?
Only in as much as some Anglicans are vegetarian. If you are trying to follow a life of simplicity and harmony, dealing with life and people as they are, then eating meat could be considered as unhelpful, but it certainly isn't proscribed.
Being an Anglican (or Episcopalian) is great - it doesn't really matter what you believe, as long as you're not too fervent about it.
I do like a good bit of High Anglicanism myself, especially combined with the Book of Common Prayer. Smells and bells with Cramner's beautiful language then off to the pub is my ideal. Hard to find it in England these days though, the bloody CofE keeps trying be more relevant (whatever that means), you'd think after fifty years of falling congregations they would get the message and try something else, but no.
I think the division into Roundheads and Cavaliers is a pretty good way of assessing people and politicians in Britain even now.
Roundheads think they know best how to live their life and how everyone else should live their life.
Cavaliers are busy living and enjoying living.
Corbyn is a Roundhead.
I think it's more complex. Charles II cultivated the image of the Merry Monarch. But, he was a ruthless and vindictive man, who made it his life's work to hunt down the Regicides.
I'm not being entirely serious! And I'm rather using the division to describe people now.
A bit more seriously, there is a division between those who want to tell people what to do and how to do it and those who are inclined to let people get on with it provided they don't frighten the horses. Too much control, too much trying to control will drive you mad.
The difference is that the Cavaliers wanted to tell you what to do. You had to conform to the Kings form of worship, using his approved prayers. The Dissenters thought differently.
Just because the rich tell you how to think and how to live does not make it right. The Dissenters were a frenzy of better ways to tackle life. My heart lies with the Diggers, Levellers and Ranters.
And ultimately it was the oppressive power of the Parliamentary army that crushed free thought and brought back the monarchy.
I know all that. I studied the political philosophy of this period at university. I rather like those who think for themselves and don't accept received opinion, wherever it comes from. As an Irish Catholic I would have been beyond the pale to Cavaliers, Roundheads, Dissenters and Levellers alike. So I look at them with an outsider's perspective, historically.
The Cavalier/Roundhead distinction is a rather crude one. I was unmooring it from its historical roots and teasing you and others about a broad brush way of categorising people into bossyboots and others.
I disagree. Get good people with good judgment, train them well, make clear what your boundaries are, trust them, stand behind them when they make errors so that they and you learn, be available for help and advice and be trustworthy in your turn and you can - and should - let them get on with it.
Maybe it's easier for me, doing what I do and with the team I've built.
What sort of work, if you don't mind me asking, do you do with your agencies?
Tell people what to do and how to do it, and the best you'll get is grudging compliance. Teach them how to solve problems, get them to agree to the goal and buy into 'how we do things around here' and you can both let them get on with it and reap the rewards of higher productivity and innovation.
I disagree. Get good people with good judgment, train them well, make clear what your boundaries are, trust them, stand behind them when they make errors so that they and you learn, be available for help and advice and be trustworthy in your turn and you can - and should - let them get on with it.
Maybe it's easier for me, doing what I do and with the team I've built.
What sort of work, if you don't mind me asking, do you do with your agencies?
Tell people what to do and how to do it, and the best you'll get is grudging compliance. Teach them how to solve problems, get them to agree to the goal and buy into 'how we do things around here' and you can both let them get on with it and reap the rewards of higher productivity and innovation.
I miss Sir Terry.
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
William Hague does well to remember the full name of the Tory Party is the Conservative and Unionist Party
Why I will be voting to stay in Europe - The EU has its failings but it also provides stability for fledgling democracies and keeps our kingdom united - we would be foolish to leave
William Hague ceased to be eurosceptic a long time ago.
Does Eurosceptic exclusively mean Leavers now?
Probably, now that we're coming to the sticking point. If we vote Remain, I think that it'll be full steam ahead, in terms of political integration.
What is pushing me towards Leave is full political integration is needed to make the Euro work, and thus a Eurozone bloc can force the non Eurozone bloc into things that aren't suitable for them
I think it would be better for the EU if we leave, because it will allow them to do the integrations they need to do to make their project work. I think it would be better for Britain if we leave, because we will never be fully committed and our legal and political systems are simply too different.
But that doesn't mean that I don't see the EU as an important market to the UK, and wish it and its constituents all the best for the future. I value the fact that I can go work for any company anywhere in the EU. And likewise I can hire anyone from anywhere in the EU. Do I think governments should be able to discriminate in favour of their own citizens? Hell, yes. The Four Freedoms, mind, are good ones and we should endeavour to keep them.
Mind you, I do wonder if supporters of EFTA/EEA membership will soon be derided as Europhiles on this board.
We live in interesting times. In the past few days elsewhere I read
i) George Osborne is a socialist
ii) The most far right Tory in history, who [moderates] himself every time he kicks the poor in the knackers
iii) A metrosexual metropolitan elite liberal who will destroy the party.
I disagree. Get good people with good judgment, train them well, make clear what your boundaries are, trust them, stand behind them when they make errors so that they and you learn, be available for help and advice and be trustworthy in your turn and you can - and should - let them get on with it.
Maybe it's easier for me, doing what I do and with the team I've built.
What sort of work, if you don't mind me asking, do you do with your agencies?
Tell people what to do and how to do it, and the best you'll get is grudging compliance. Teach them how to solve problems, get them to agree to the goal and buy into 'how we do things around here' and you can both let them get on with it and reap the rewards of higher productivity and innovation.
I agree but you have missed one bit, if someone will not buy into how you want the team to run then you have to get rid of them, quickly. If you don't they will make your life a bloody misery and you will never achieve the higher productivity and innovation.
I think the division into Roundheads and Cavaliers is a pretty good way of assessing people and politicians in Britain even now.
Roundheads think they know best how to live their life and how everyone else should live their life.
Cavaliers are busy living and enjoying living.
Corbyn is a Roundhead.
I think it's more complex. Charles II cultivated the image of the Merry Monarch. But, he was a ruthless and vindictive man, who made it his life's work to hunt down the Regicides.
I'm not being entirely serious! And I'm rather using the division to describe people now.
A bit more seriously, there is a division between those who want to tell people what to do and how to do it and those who are inclined to let people get on with it provided they don't frighten the horses. Too much control, too much trying to control will drive you mad.
The difference is that the Cavaliers wanted to tell you what to do. You had to conform to the Kings form of worship, using his approved prayers. The Dissenters thought differently.
Just because the rich tell you how to think and how to live does not make it right. The Dissenters were a frenzy of better ways to tackle life. My heart lies with the Diggers, Levellers and Ranters.
And ultimately it was the oppressive power of the Parliamentary army that crushed free thought and brought back the monarchy.
I know all that. I studied the political philosophy of this period at university. I rather like those who think for themselves and don't accept received opinion, wherever it comes from. As an Irish Catholic I would have been beyond the pale to Cavaliers, Roundheads, Dissenters and Levellers alike. So I look at them with an outsider's perspective, historically.
The Cavalier/Roundhead distinction is a rather crude one. I was unmooring it from its historical roots and teasing you and others about a broad brush way of categorising people into bossyboots and others.
But you have it the wrong way round. The Dissenter movements arose because of the bossyboots of the Anglican aristocracy. The other Protestant movements before the 17th Century were a reaction to the oppressive and totalitarian nature of a corrupt Catholic church.
Protestantism in general and Non-Conformism in particular is the birthplace of free thought.
Try Taoism; all the fun of Buddhism but without the dietary requirements.
They are vegetarians, aren't they?
Only in as much as some Anglicans are vegetarian. If you are trying to follow a life of simplicity and harmony, dealing with life and people as they are, then eating meat could be considered as unhelpful, but it certainly isn't proscribed.
Being an Anglican (or Episcopalian) is great - it doesn't really matter what you believe, as long as you're not too fervent about it.
I do like a good bit of High Anglicanism myself, especially combined with the Book of Common Prayer. Smells and bells with Cramner's beautiful language then off to the pub is my ideal. Hard to find it in England these days though, the bloody CofE keeps trying be more relevant (whatever that means), you'd think after fifty years of falling congregations they would get the message and try something else, but no.
My best friend lives in Newbury. One warm Sunday July evening in 2005 I went to church with him, at a lovely 13th century church. We sat outside listening to the Ashes test match on the radio. So did everyone else. The time for the service came and went. The rector and the other church folks came out and we all stood round one car and listened to it together. Then we had the service which was really nice. Test match cricket is a better bonding experience than religion
I disagree. Get good people with good judgment, train them well, make clear what your boundaries are, trust them, stand behind them when they make errors so that they and you learn, be available for help and advice and be trustworthy in your turn and you can - and should - let them get on with it.
Maybe it's easier for me, doing what I do and with the team I've built.
What sort of work, if you don't mind me asking, do you do with your agencies?
Tell people what to do and how to do it, and the best you'll get is grudging compliance. Teach them how to solve problems, get them to agree to the goal and buy into 'how we do things around here' and you can both let them get on with it and reap the rewards of higher productivity and innovation.
I agree but you have missed one bit, if someone will not buy into how you want the team to run then you have to get rid of them, quickly. If you don't they will make your life a bloody misery and you will never achieve the higher productivity and innovation.
I think the division into Roundheads and Cavaliers is a pretty good way of assessing people and politicians in Britain even now.
Roundheads think they know best how to live their life and how everyone else should live their life.
Cavaliers are busy living and enjoying living.
Corbyn is a Roundhead.
I think it's more complex. Charles II cultivated the image of the Merry Monarch. But, he was a ruthless and vindictive man, who made it his life's work to hunt down the Regicides.
I'm not being entirely serious! And I'm rather using the division to describe people now.
A bit more seriously, there is a division between those who want to tell people what to do and how to do it and those who are inclined to let people get on with it provided they don't frighten the horses. Too much control, too much trying to control will drive you mad.
The difference is that the Cavaliers wanted to tell you what to do. You had to conform to the Kings form of worship, using his approved prayers. The Dissenters thought differently.
Just because the rich tell you how to think and how to live does not make it right. The Dissenters were a frenzy of better ways to tackle life. My heart lies with the Diggers, Levellers and Ranters.
And ultimately it was the oppressive power of the Parliamentary army that crushed free thought and brought back the monarchy.
I know all that. I studied the political philosophy of this period at university. I rather like those who think for themselves and don't accept received opinion, wherever it comes from. As an Irish Catholic I would have been beyond the pale to Cavaliers, Roundheads, Dissenters and Levellers alike. So I look at them with an outsider's perspective, historically.
The Cavalier/Roundhead distinction is a rather crude one. I was unmooring it from its historical roots and teasing you and others about a broad brush way of categorising people into bossyboots and others.
When I was at boarding school there was a distinction between roundheads and cavaliers. One was circumcised and the other wasn't. I don't remember which was which.
I think the division into Roundheads and Cavaliers is a pretty good way of assessing people and politicians in Britain even now.
Roundheads think they know best how to live their life and how everyone else should live their life.
Cavaliers are busy living and enjoying living.
Corbyn is a Roundhead.
I think it's more complex. Charles II cultivated the image of the Merry Monarch. But, he was a ruthless and vindictive man, who made it his life's work to hunt down the Regicides.
I'm not being entirely serious! And I'm rather using the division to describe people now.
A bit more seriously, there is a division between those who want to tell people what to do and how to do it and those who are inclined to let people get on with it provided they don't frighten the horses. Too much control, too much trying to control will drive you mad.
The difference is that the Cavaliers wanted to tell you what to do. You had to conform to the Kings form of worship, using his approved prayers. The Dissenters thought differently.
Just because the rich tell you how to think and how to live does not make it right. The Dissenters were a frenzy of better ways to tackle life. My heart lies with the Diggers, Levellers and Ranters.
And ultimately it was the oppressive power of the Parliamentary army that crushed free thought and brought back the monarchy.
I know all that. I studied the political philosophy of this period at university. I rather like those who think for themselves and don't accept received opinion, wherever it comes from. As an Irish Catholic I would have been beyond the pale to Cavaliers, Roundheads, Dissenters and Levellers alike. So I look at them with an outsider's perspective, historically.
The Cavalier/Roundhead distinction is a rather crude one. I was unmooring it from its historical roots and teasing you and others about a broad brush way of categorising people into bossyboots and others.
When I was at boarding school there was a distinction between roundheads and cavaliers. One was circumcised and the other wasn't. I don't remember which was which.
The college also said it would start a six-month consultation process next February to determine the faith of the statue. However, it is understood Oxford isn’t just considering the removal of the statue but it is considering adding “clear historical context” to his monuments.
How about a sign above every building entrance that says 'People in the past had different views from you, and most of them were racist as well. Can you live with that fact? Good'?
Add "and people in the future will think you had some horrible views, too."
I am certain that it will only take a few decades before some of the views that I hold now that are considered quite normal will be regarded as unfashionable and in a century or two, utterly bigoted or otherwise repugnant.
I am not sure what those views will turn out to be, but it's fun to guess.
Self-consciously "liberal" and "progressive" people sometimes feel they're immune from this problem because historically more "progressive" opinions (such as their own!) have prevailed, but the historical record is against it. We all know from how poor science fiction predictions are (not just the technological ones but the sociological and philosophical ones too) that people's conceptions of future trends often only weakly resemble the reality. Eugenics and targeted sterilisation were once a high-minded progressive project, for instance, and at the time it seemed scientific and rationalistic and in line with other progressive opinions which did come to predominate. We have reached a stage where Germaine Greer is facing hostility being invited to universities to speak, because she is at odds with the new waves of intersectional feminists who view her as a fossil, an offensive (trans)misogynist whose views violate their "safe spaces".
During the Bruce Jenner controversy it dawned on me that worksheets I wrote only a decade ago ("if 40% of students in a class are girls, and there are 25 students in the class, then how many students are boys?") would now be considered unacceptable in many circles - and in 100 years time might well be seen in the same ghastly way that lots of old learning-to-read books with deeply sexist stereotypes get seen now. Ditto maths questions about married couples where it is assumed husbands are married to wives.
I wonder whether the fact I drive a car even though I live in a time when scientists warn of climate change will mark me out in 100 years as some kind of monster. Will those who are not vegetarian be seen as abusers of animals? Who knows.
But you have it the wrong way round. The Dissenter movements arose because of the bossyboots of the Anglican aristocracy. The other Protestant movements before the 17th Century were a reaction to the oppressive and totalitarian nature of a corrupt Catholic church.
Protestantism in general and Non-Conformism in particular is the birthplace of free thought.
I don't have it the wrong way round. It depends on your perspective. I don't disagree that there was a reaction to the Stuart monarchy and to its view of how people should live and think. But Protestants, in their turn, for all their claims to be against the oppressive monarchy and Catholic church (true - up to a point - though like much, it was about them wanting more power for themselves, at least as much as it was about free speech) were pretty good at being oppressive and totalitarian themselves when it came to people who challenged them e.g. Irish Catholics.
Look at how Catholics were treated in England and Ireland during this period and well into the 19th century and tell me that the English were not being oppressive and totalitarian and illiberal.
The English are very good at claiming that they are on the side of freedom and liberalism (not without reason) but they do have a tendency to forget that, looked at from other perspectives (the Irish, say, or the Neapolitans in the Parthenopean Republic in the 1790s) the British were not on the side of liberty and equality, let alone free speech, but on the side of the oppressors and possibly one of the most oppressive and stupid Catholic monarchies ever, the Bourbons.
And it is also not true to claim that there was no thought or inquiry under the Catholic church or by Catholics. Thomas Aquinas?
An interesting topic but it is late. Another time, maybe.
It's only a matter of time before Osborne's economic miracle goes tits-up and a crash is just round the corner.The Labour leader needs to release the energy blockages in his shadow cabinet to establish his credentials in 2016 so he's ready for it even if Osborne is not.
I think Jehadi Jez has already established his credentials.
Were the economy to go mammary glands up, and the Leader of the Opposition were Corbyn and the Shadow Chancellor McDonnell, the 2020 General Election would be like 1992 with knobs on
I disagree there - I really do not believe that Osborne has the voter appeal enjoyed by John Major at that time. Remember too that despite having been Foreign Secretary and Chancellor for short periods Major was then largely unknown to the general public. Osborne is much more in the position of Brown in 2007.
According to the Times, the main reason Brussels are playing hardball over this "renegotiation" is because they don't want to encourage referendums in other countries.
President Hollande of France is angry at the precedent taken by Marine Le Pen, the leader of the far-right National Front. “Members of the French government refer to Cameron as the British ‘Marine Le Pen’,” a diplomat said.
the irony is, we dont really want much, there are a few things that really annoy us, give Cameron a fudge on a bit of it, let him allow further and deeper cooperation for those that want it.
It's no biggie, the EU has morphed in many ways over the years to suit both larger and smaller countries.
We really arent asking for much in comparison. If they arent even willing to do that. We may begrudge our membership, but we generally arent troublemakers and we follow the rules.
I think one of the bizarre obsessions of the present time is with people having a "good sense of humour". How often do you read about people in previous centuries having either a good or bad sense of humour, as if were an important aspect of their personality?
Indeed. I wonder what his views are on the statue of Cromwell though.
I always thought Cromwell was a hypocrite. Abolishing the hereditary monarchy, and who succeeded him as Lord Protector? His flipping son!
Very sensibly, his son preferred to live in wealthy obscurity.
Richard Cromwell had little option than to do otherwise. He didn't have the means to rule as his father had done even if he wanted to.
The instability of the English failed state would lead directly to the Scottish takeover once England was conquered by the Dutch.
In terms of nations which at least had a moderately elected legislature, England was almost certainly the first Failed State in history. It is very fortunate that England had Scotland ready to take over.
I think one of the bizarre obsessions of the present time is with people having a "good sense of humour". How often do you read about people in previous centuries having either a good or bad sense of humour, as if were an important aspect of their personality?
We are a much more crowded planet now than we were then. Humour is much more important to getting along in crowded surroundings than in places where you can retreat to your den when those around you get too annoying.
I'm liking Jediism for the mind control stuff, so I can bamboozle the wife "These aren't the shoes you're looking for. Buy the cheaper ones".
"YOU WERE THE CHOSEN ONE! It was said you would destroy the Prequels, not join them! Bring balance to the Franchise, not leave it in darkness!"
Princess Leia Organa: No! Episode Seven is wonderful! We have no issue apart from being a remake, you can't possibly... Governor Tarkin: You would prefer another target, a military target? Then name the film! I grow tired of asking this so it will be the last time: Where is the issue with Star Wars movies? Jar Jar Abrams: ...The Prequels. It's the Prequels. Governor Tarkin: There. You see, George Lucas, she can be reasonable. Continue with the operation; you may fire when ready. Jar Jar Abrams: WHAT? Governor Tarkin: You're far too trusting. The Prequels are too far gone to make an effective demonstration - but don't worry; we will deal with your Lucas Films soon enough.
Comments
My hope is one day we are all touched by his noodly appendage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
http://tinyurl.com/z5c4vs3
So Cameron has enraged the President of France with this?
Put me down as a firm Remain now
And on that bombshell, goodnight
Hilarious
Just because the rich tell you how to think and how to live does not make it right. The Dissenters were a frenzy of better ways to tackle life. My heart lies with the Diggers, Levellers and Ranters.
And ultimately it was the oppressive power of the Parliamentary army that crushed free thought and brought back the monarchy.
Put me down as a firm Remain now
And on that bombshell, goodnight
Traitor Pig Dog
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
The Cavalier/Roundhead distinction is a rather crude one. I was unmooring it from its historical roots and teasing you and others about a broad brush way of categorising people into bossyboots and others.
Protestantism in general and Non-Conformism in particular is the birthplace of free thought.
I am not sure what those views will turn out to be, but it's fun to guess.
Self-consciously "liberal" and "progressive" people sometimes feel they're immune from this problem because historically more "progressive" opinions (such as their own!) have prevailed, but the historical record is against it. We all know from how poor science fiction predictions are (not just the technological ones but the sociological and philosophical ones too) that people's conceptions of future trends often only weakly resemble the reality. Eugenics and targeted sterilisation were once a high-minded progressive project, for instance, and at the time it seemed scientific and rationalistic and in line with other progressive opinions which did come to predominate. We have reached a stage where Germaine Greer is facing hostility being invited to universities to speak, because she is at odds with the new waves of intersectional feminists who view her as a fossil, an offensive (trans)misogynist whose views violate their "safe spaces".
During the Bruce Jenner controversy it dawned on me that worksheets I wrote only a decade ago ("if 40% of students in a class are girls, and there are 25 students in the class, then how many students are boys?") would now be considered unacceptable in many circles - and in 100 years time might well be seen in the same ghastly way that lots of old learning-to-read books with deeply sexist stereotypes get seen now. Ditto maths questions about married couples where it is assumed husbands are married to wives.
I wonder whether the fact I drive a car even though I live in a time when scientists warn of climate change will mark me out in 100 years as some kind of monster. Will those who are not vegetarian be seen as abusers of animals? Who knows.
Look at how Catholics were treated in England and Ireland during this period and well into the 19th century and tell me that the English were not being oppressive and totalitarian and illiberal.
The English are very good at claiming that they are on the side of freedom and liberalism (not without reason) but they do have a tendency to forget that, looked at from other perspectives (the Irish, say, or the Neapolitans in the Parthenopean Republic in the 1790s) the British were not on the side of liberty and equality, let alone free speech, but on the side of the oppressors and possibly one of the most oppressive and stupid Catholic monarchies ever, the Bourbons.
And it is also not true to claim that there was no thought or inquiry under the Catholic church or by Catholics. Thomas Aquinas?
An interesting topic but it is late. Another time, maybe.
the irony is, we dont really want much, there are a few things that really annoy us, give Cameron a fudge on a bit of it, let him allow further and deeper cooperation for those that want it.
It's no biggie, the EU has morphed in many ways over the years to suit both larger and smaller countries.
We really arent asking for much in comparison. If they arent even willing to do that. We may begrudge our membership, but we generally arent troublemakers and we follow the rules.
In terms of nations which at least had a moderately elected legislature, England was almost certainly the first Failed State in history. It is very fortunate that England had Scotland ready to take over.
Governor Tarkin: You would prefer another target, a military target? Then name the film! I grow tired of asking this so it will be the last time: Where is the issue with Star Wars movies?
Jar Jar Abrams: ...The Prequels. It's the Prequels.
Governor Tarkin: There. You see, George Lucas, she can be reasonable. Continue with the operation; you may fire when ready.
Jar Jar Abrams: WHAT?
Governor Tarkin: You're far too trusting. The Prequels are too far gone to make an effective demonstration - but don't worry; we will deal with your Lucas Films soon enough.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35162523
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12062399/15-years-ago-the-CIA-tried-to-predict-the-world-in-2015.-Heres-what-they-got-wrong.html
"After escaping numerous CIA assassination plots in the 1960s, Cuban leader Fidel Castro has thwarted his old enemies once again – by failing to die."
Hmmmm....and when exactly was the last time he has been seen in public?
Jenson's going to be a fair bit lighter in the pocket...