Think thats mostly right. Khan's support for gay marriage removes all doubt in my mind that he is influenced by hardline religion. Although I would prefer he calls it out more. I think that's Labour's problem. Not that they are extreme, but they go softly softly on religious conservatism so as not to upset voters. We really shouldn't be supporting events with segregated audiences.
It's an interesting borderline case, in my opinion. I was invited to speak to a segregated audience myself some 10 years ago, and agreed on the basis that both halves had equal opportunity to put questions - the women were just as challenging as the men. I didn't feel that it was reasonable as a guest at a mosque to lay down the law on how they ought to sit. But Mohammed Sarwar,then a Glasgow Muslim MP, told me that he'd said from the start that he'd never speak to a segregated audience - "segregate if you like, but don't expect me to come if you do". I thought it was easier for him as a Muslim, but I accept that I might have been wrong.
The limits of quantitative modelling. Using bad data in the two polls he is feeding in and generalising across very different regions and states.
Trump would like nothing better than to be one on one with Cruz. Cruz will win the delegate poor plains and Rocky mountain states, Trump will sweep up all those delegates in the Far West, South West and North East.
I agree LondonBob. Also dividing the anti-Trump vote means (a) Trump is more likely to win but (b) he is less likely to get half of all delegates. Trump will want to prioritise (b), the risk of a stitch up is too great if he gets say 42% of delegates.
I think the risk of a stitch up would be greater if his main opponent wasn't Ted Cruz. If it's a brokered convention it probably comes down to who is ahead on the delegate total, Trump is alot closer to the normal Republican moderate (McCain, Romney etc) than Cruz in many ways.
Peter whoever it was multi-millionaire agribusiness guy was about to blow my anecdotal "yes but how does it affect your industry" analysis out of the water by listing the actual damage EU law does to in this case farming in Lincolnshire.
And.....answer came there none. He complained about the Spanish flouting an existing EU law and...er...that was it. Soubry was excellent (sorry Nick) in asking exactly how EU laws discriminated against him. And he had no answer at all.
And he wanted free movement of people to help the 60% of his workers who are migrants (with Kate Hoey PBUH saying how she would prefer more people from Africa and the Caribbean picking caulis in Lincs).
The abandonment by the Left (or a significant part of it) of its moral compass in order to flirt with and embrace people and groups who, were they not a bit dark-skinned and/or claiming to be religious, would in other times be described by the Left as fascists is an utter disgrace. Without a moral compass Labour is nothing. Nothing worthwhile, IMO, anyway.
IMO, Labour certainly have a serious problem with this, in the way the Tories in the 80's used to turn a blind eye to fellow travelers who were racist or homophobic.
Agreed. Labour have no moral authority to talk about racism or sexism or homophobia or other similar bad stuff when they, more than any other party, are the ones embracing those most likely to see such stuff as a good thing.
Why should I as a woman vote for a party which embraces those who think it OK for my husband to beat me or for my child to be killed because of their sexuality? At the first whiff of more votes from homophobes and wife-beaters they have abandoned their feminist principles and women and gays. So they can F*** Off into Space, as far as I'm concerned.
When they've understood why the choices they've made are bad ones and turned away from those choices and apologised, then perhaps they might be let into polite society and I might consider engaging with them again. Meanwhile I'll hang on to those Labour people I know personally who share my concerns and are equally concerned / appalled etc.
Lots of Leave activity in Ledbury town centre on Saturday morning. Balloons leaflets etc. They seemed to be getting a broadly positive response from many shoppers. Mind you, if we lose small-town Deep England we really have no chance. Still working on getting the missus to allow me to put avposter in the window.
I ain't been following closely, but hasn't it been groups Khan has supported and aides he has employed?? I think the Right over eggs this stuff, but the Left really needs to get a grip.
I agree about getting a grip. My recollection is that he had two aides (out of how many I don't know) who turned out to have expressed dodgy views, the former husband of his long-divorced sister had expressed extreme views in the 1990s, and he'd attended meetings where people with extreme views also attended. The first is a valid point and shows the need for better vetting (which also applies to new party members, though there's a limit to how far you can check everyone). The second seems tosh to me. The third is to my mind also tosh - default for politicians is to go to meetings where you're asked to speak (I'd cheerfully go to a UKIP meeting if they let me put my views), and it doesn't mean you agree with everyone else - but others disagree.
But they all fall down on the fact that he doesn't actually look or sound extreme, and isn't. These guilt by association things only really stick if people already suspect you of dodgy views yourself. Merely being a Muslim doesn't make most people think that, certainly not in London.
Nice, reasonable, mild mannered Nick casually equating supporting UKIP and Islamic Extremism
I ain't been following closely, but hasn't it been groups Khan has supported and aides he has employed?? I think the Right over eggs this stuff, but the Left really needs to get a grip.
I agree about getting a grip. My recollection is that he had two aides (out of how many I don't know) who turned out to have expressed dodgy views, the former husband of his long-divorced sister had expressed extreme views in the 1990s, and he'd attended meetings where people with extreme views also attended. The first is a valid point and shows the need for better vetting (which also applies to new party members, though there's a limit to how far you can check everyone). The second seems tosh to me. The third is to my mind also tosh - default for politicians is to go to meetings where you're asked to speak (I'd cheerfully go to a UKIP meeting if they let me put my views), and it doesn't mean you agree with everyone else - but others disagree.
But they all fall down on the fact that he doesn't actually look or sound extreme, and isn't. These guilt by association things only really stick if people already suspect you of dodgy views yourself. Merely being a Muslim doesn't make most people think that, certainly not in London.
Nice, reasonable, mild mannered Nick casually equating supporting UKIP and Islamic Extremism
It was a typo: he meant isamic extremism
I'll get my coat...
So that's Alistair Meeks then, this site's leading Isamophobe
@rustinpeace00: In saying that they'll only consider 'new evidence' in these anti-Semitism cases, Labour implies that they're OK with the current evidence.
Think thats mostly right. Khan's support for gay marriage removes all doubt in my mind that he is influenced by hardline religion. Although I would prefer he calls it out more. I think that's Labour's problem. Not that they are extreme, but they go softly softly on religious conservatism so as not to upset voters. We really shouldn't be supporting events with segregated audiences.
It's an interesting borderline case, in my opinion. I was invited to speak to a segregated audience myself some 10 years ago, and agreed on the basis that both halves had equal opportunity to put questions - the women were just as challenging as the men. I didn't feel that it was reasonable as a guest at a mosque to lay down the law on how they ought to sit. But Mohammed Sarwar,then a Glasgow Muslim MP, told me that he'd said from the start that he'd never speak to a segregated audience - "segregate if you like, but don't expect me to come if you do". I thought it was easier for him as a Muslim, but I accept that I might have been wrong.
What you can do is say that you think it wrong, that this is why it's wrong, that this is not how things should be done in this country etc. You can challenge. Now you may have done this.
But the argument against Khan and Livingstone and Corbyn and Slaughter and others is that they don't challenge. They give every impression that either they don't care or or, if they do, they don't have the courage to say anything or that they agree. And it is that which repels people like me who think that (a) people are equal under the law (b) the law should be applied equally and (c) it is abhorrent that in 21st century Britain a person's rights (usually but not exclusively a woman's rights) should effectively be determined by her religion and/or the culture of the place where her parents, her grand-parents or great-grand-parents were born.
The weighted sample ratio of 18-24 compared to 65+ is 2.7. This may be understating the 65+ and in Scotland the Conservative lead over Labour could be a little higher in this Yougov survey.
Think thats mostly right. Khan's support for gay marriage removes all doubt in my mind that he is influenced by hardline religion. Although I would prefer he calls it out more. I think that's Labour's problem. Not that they are extreme, but they go softly softly on religious conservatism so as not to upset voters. We really shouldn't be supporting events with segregated audiences.
It's an interesting borderline case, in my opinion. I was invited to speak to a segregated audience myself some 10 years ago, and agreed on the basis that both halves had equal opportunity to put questions - the women were just as challenging as the men. I didn't feel that it was reasonable as a guest at a mosque to lay down the law on how they ought to sit. But Mohammed Sarwar,then a Glasgow Muslim MP, told me that he'd said from the start that he'd never speak to a segregated audience - "segregate if you like, but don't expect me to come if you do". I thought it was easier for him as a Muslim, but I accept that I might have been wrong.
What you can do is say that you think it wrong, that this is why it's wrong, that this is not how things should be done in this country etc. You can challenge. Now you may have done this.
But the argument against Khan and Livingstone and Corbyn and Slaughter and others is that they don't challenge. They give every impression that either they don't care or or, if they do, they don't have the courage to say anything or that they agree. And it is that which repels people like me who think that (a) people are equal under the law (b) the law should be applied equally and (c) it is abhorrent that in 21st century Britain a person's rights (usually but not exclusively a woman's rights) should effectively be determined by her religion and/or the culture of the place where her parents, her grand-parents or great-grand-parents were born.
Segregated meetings at Mosques or Synagogues don't bother me much. OTOH, local councillors pressing police and social services to ignore child rape bothers me very much.
If UKIP manage 7% in the Mayoral election, they should easily clear the threshold to win seats in the Assembly. 5% gives 1 seat, 6% 2 seats, 9% 3 seats.
Lots of Leave activity in Ledbury town centre on Saturday morning. Balloons leaflets etc. They seemed to be getting a broadly positive response from many shoppers. Mind you, if we lose small-town Deep England we really have no chance.
Indeed. Canvassing in inner London yesterday revealed almost unanimous support for Remain. About 10 of us were out for a couple of hours and I was told that only two Leaves had been found in about 100 contacts.
The abandonment by the Left (or a significant part of it) of its moral compass in order to flirt with and embrace people and groups who, were they not a bit dark-skinned and/or claiming to be religious, would in other times be described by the Left as fascists is an utter disgrace. Without a moral compass Labour is nothing. Nothing worthwhile, IMO, anyway.
IMO, Labour certainly have a serious problem with this, in the way the Tories in the 80's used to turn a blind eye to fellow travelers who were racist or homophobic.
Agreed. Labour have no moral authority to talk about racism or sexism or homophobia or other similar bad stuff when they, more than any other party, are the ones embracing those most likely to see such stuff as a good thing.
Why should I as a woman vote for a party which embraces those who think it OK for my husband to beat me or for my child to be killed because of their sexuality? At the first whiff of more votes from homophobes and wife-beaters they have abandoned their feminist principles and women and gays. So they can F*** Off into Space, as far as I'm concerned.
When they've understood why the choices they've made are bad ones and turned away from those choices and apologised, then perhaps they might be let into polite society and I might consider engaging with them again. Meanwhile I'll hang on to those Labour people I know personally who share my concerns and are equally concerned / appalled etc.
Apropos of nothing, I was (re-)reading a Dorothy L Sayers novel yesterday, and one of the characters said: "He's my man, he's got a right to hit me."
Lots of Leave activity in Ledbury town centre on Saturday morning. Balloons leaflets etc. They seemed to be getting a broadly positive response from many shoppers. Mind you, if we lose small-town Deep England we really have no chance.
Indeed. Canvassing in inner London yesterday revealed almost unanimous support for Remain. About 10 of us were out for a couple of hours and I was told that only two Leaves had been found in about 100 contacts.
I think there are individual wards that could easily be 80% for either Leave or Remain.
I ain't been following closely, but hasn't it been groups Khan has supported and aides he has employed?? I think the Right over eggs this stuff, but the Left really needs to get a grip.
I agree about getting a grip. My recollection is that he had two aides (out of how many I don't know) who turned out to have expressed dodgy views, the former husband of his long-divorced sister had expressed extreme views in the 1990s, and he'd attended meetings where people with extreme views also attended. The first is a valid point and shows the need for better vetting (which also applies to new party members, though there's a limit to how far you can check everyone). The second seems tosh to me. The third is to my mind also tosh - default for politicians is to go to meetings where you're asked to speak (I'd cheerfully go to a UKIP meeting if they let me put my views), and it doesn't mean you agree with everyone else - but others disagree.
But they all fall down on the fact that he doesn't actually look or sound extreme, and isn't. These guilt by association things only really stick if people already suspect you of dodgy views yourself. Merely being a Muslim doesn't make most people think that, certainly not in London.
Nice, reasonable, mild mannered Nick casually equating supporting UKIP and Islamic Extremism
It was a typo: he meant isamic extremism
I'll get my coat...
So that's Alistair Meeks then, this site's leading Isamophobe
@rustinpeace00: In saying that they'll only consider 'new evidence' in these anti-Semitism cases, Labour implies that they're OK with the current evidence.
Those quotes from that lady should have resulted in a lifetime ban. The fact that it did not speaks volumes about the morals of the Labour party.
The weighted sample ratio of 18-24 compared to 65+ is 2.7. This may be understating the 65+ and in Scotland the Conservative lead over Labour could be a little higher in this Yougov survey.
Alastair Meeks is right about expecting the unexpected on the EU ref.
Who'd have thought Jeremy Clarkson would come out for a United States of Europe - one currency, one army, and one plug - as he did in the Sunday Times yesterday?
Lots of Leave activity in Ledbury town centre on Saturday morning. Balloons leaflets etc. They seemed to be getting a broadly positive response from many shoppers. Mind you, if we lose small-town Deep England we really have no chance.
Indeed. Canvassing in inner London yesterday revealed almost unanimous support for Remain. About 10 of us were out for a couple of hours and I was told that only two Leaves had been found in about 100 contacts.
The abandonment by the Left (or a significant part of it) of its moral compass in order to flirt with and embrace people and groups who, were they not a bit dark-skinned and/or claiming to be religious, would in other times be described by the Left as fascists is an utter disgrace. Without a moral compass Labour is nothing. Nothing worthwhile, IMO, anyway.
IMO, Labour certainly have a serious problem with this, in the way the Tories in the 80's used to turn a blind eye to fellow travelers who were racist or homophobic.
Agreed. Labour have no moral authority to talk about racism or sexism or homophobia or other similar bad stuff when they, more than any other party, are the ones embracing those most likely to see such stuff as a good thing.
Why should I as a woman vote for a party which embraces those who think it OK for my husband to beat me or for my child to be killed because of their sexuality? At the first whiff of more votes from homophobes and wife-beaters they have abandoned their feminist principles and women and gays. So they can F*** Off into Space, as far as I'm concerned.
When they've understood why the choices they've made are bad ones and turned away from those choices and apologised, then perhaps they might be let into polite society and I might consider engaging with them again. Meanwhile I'll hang on to those Labour people I know personally who share my concerns and are equally concerned / appalled etc.
Apropos of nothing, I was (re-)reading a Dorothy L Sayers novel yesterday, and one of the characters said: "He's my man, he's got a right to hit me."
Another interesting bit of historical social commentary comes in a Dorothy Sayers novel (I forget which one) where a philanderer is murdered and, for much of the novel, the chief suspect is a woman who he seduced, by promising to marry her, and then abandoned. Everyone is enormously sympathetic to her, treating murder as a reasonable response to such dishonourable behaviour.
@DPJHodges: The issue isn't why Vicki Kirby was allowed back into the Labour party. The issue is why did Vicki Kirby think Labour was the party for her.
@DPJHodges: By the way, the answer to my question is the reason Vicki Kirby thought Labour was the party for her is because it is the party for her.
Think thats mostly right. Khan's support for gay marriage removes all doubt in my mind that he is influenced by hardline religion. Although I would prefer he calls it out more. I think that's Labour's problem. Not that they are extreme, but they go softly softly on religious conservatism so as not to upset voters. We really shouldn't be supporting events with segregated audiences.
It's an interesting borderline case, in my opinion. I was invited to speak to a segregated audience myself some 10 years ago, and agreed on the basis that both halves had equal opportunity to put questions - the women were just as challenging as the men. I didn't feel that it was reasonable as a guest at a mosque to lay down the law on how they ought to sit. But Mohammed Sarwar,then a Glasgow Muslim MP, told me that he'd said from the start that he'd never speak to a segregated audience - "segregate if you like, but don't expect me to come if you do". I thought it was easier for him as a Muslim, but I accept that I might have been wrong.
What you can do is say that you think it wrong, that this is why it's wrong, that this is not how things should be done in this country etc. You can challenge. Now you may have done this.
But the argument against Khan and Livingstone and Corbyn and Slaughter and others is that they don't challenge. They give every impression that either they don't care or or, if they do, they don't have the courage to say anything or that they agree. And it is that which repels people like me who think that (a) people are equal under the law (b) the law should be applied equally and (c) it is abhorrent that in 21st century Britain a person's rights (usually but not exclusively a woman's rights) should effectively be determined by her religion and/or the culture of the place where her parents, her grand-parents or great-grand-parents were born.
Segregated meetings at Mosques or Synagogues don't bother me much. OTOH, local councillors pressing police and social services to ignore child rape bothers me very much.
It's not either or, though, is it? First, it's segregated meetings at mosques. Then it turns into segregated meetings at universities because the speaker doesn't like it. Then we have segregation of pupils in primary schools. And an attitude to the female of the species which thinks that "she" is worth less than a "he" is going to make it easier for those many "shes" of many ages to be raped and to be ignored by the authorities.
Alastair Meeks is right about expecting the unexpected on the EU ref.
Who'd have thought Jeremy Clarkson would come out for a United States of Europe - one currency, one army, and one plug - as he did in the Sunday Times yesterday?
I'll give him credit: unlike many other Europhiles, he's honest about the direction of travel he wants. Now, as it happens, I disagree with him. But at least he's not attempt to hoodwink people by suggesting they get "just a little bit pregnant."
It's not either or, though, is it? First, it's segregated meetings at mosques. Then it turns into segregated meetings at universities because the speaker doesn't like it. Then we have segregation of pupils in primary schools. And an attitude to the female of the species which thinks that "she" is worth less than a "he" is going to make it easier for those many "shes" of many ages to be raped and to be ignored by the authorities.
There is a line, though.
I went to an orthodox Jewish wedding. The men and the women were separated during the service.
I didn't call for this to end: that's just the nature of going to a wedding in a synagogue.
The abandonment by the Left (or a significant part of it) of its moral compass in order to flirt with and embrace people and groups who, were they not a bit dark-skinned and/or claiming to be religious, would in other times be described by the Left as fascists is an utter disgrace. Without a moral compass Labour is nothing. Nothing worthwhile, IMO, anyway.
IMO, Labour certainly have a serious problem with this, in the way the Tories in the 80's used to turn a blind eye to fellow travelers who were racist or homophobic.
Agreed. Labour have no moral authority to talk about racism or sexism or homophobia or other similar bad stuff when they, more than any other party, are the ones embracing those most likely to see such stuff as a good thing.
Why should I as a woman vote for a party which embraces those who think it OK for my husband to beat me or for my child to be killed because of their sexuality? At the first whiff of more votes from homophobes and wife-beaters they have abandoned their feminist principles and women and gays. So they can F*** Off into Space, as far as I'm concerned.
When they've understood why the choices they've made are bad ones and turned away from those choices and apologised, then perhaps they might be let into polite society and I might consider engaging with them again. Meanwhile I'll hang on to those Labour people I know personally who share my concerns and are equally concerned / appalled etc.
Apropos of nothing, I was (re-)reading a Dorothy L Sayers novel yesterday, and one of the characters said: "He's my man, he's got a right to hit me."
There was an article about domestic violence in the Sunday papers where a lot of the victims took that attitude. And one whole story line in the Archers is based on just this view: the victim accepting the responsibility for what happens to her because she believes she is not worth it.
Bullies will always want to dominate others. That, regrettably, is probably a part of human nature. But there is no earthly reason why we should indulge such people. And those who do deserve censure not praise.
The abandonment by the Left (or a significant part of it) of its moral compass in order to flirt with and embrace people and groups who, were they not a bit dark-skinned and/or claiming to be religious, would in other times be described by the Left as fascists is an utter disgrace. Without a moral compass Labour is nothing. Nothing worthwhile, IMO, anyway.
IMO, Labour certainly have a serious problem with this, in the way the Tories in the 80's used to turn a blind eye to fellow travelers who were racist or homophobic.
Agreed. Labour have no moral authority to talk about racism or sexism or homophobia or other similar bad stuff when they, more than any other party, are the ones embracing those most likely to see such stuff as a good thing.
Why should I as a woman vote for a party which embraces those who think it OK for my husband to beat me or for my child to be killed because of their sexuality? At the first whiff of more votes from homophobes and wife-beaters they have abandoned their feminist principles and women and gays. So they can F*** Off into Space, as far as I'm concerned.
When they've understood why the choices they've made are bad ones and turned away from those choices and apologised, then perhaps they might be let into polite society and I might consider engaging with them again. Meanwhile I'll hang on to those Labour people I know personally who share my concerns and are equally concerned / appalled etc.
Apropos of nothing, I was (re-)reading a Dorothy L Sayers novel yesterday, and one of the characters said: "He's my man, he's got a right to hit me."
Another interesting bit of historical social commentary comes in a Dorothy Sayers novel (I forget which one) where a philanderer is murdered and, for much of the novel, the chief suspect is a woman who he seduced, by promising to marry her, and then abandoned. Everyone is enormously sympathetic to her, treating murder as a reasonable response to such dishonourable behaviour.
It's not either or, though, is it? First, it's segregated meetings at mosques. Then it turns into segregated meetings at universities because the speaker doesn't like it. Then we have segregation of pupils in primary schools. And an attitude to the female of the species which thinks that "she" is worth less than a "he" is going to make it easier for those many "shes" of many ages to be raped and to be ignored by the authorities.
There is a line, though.
I went to an orthodox Jewish wedding. The men and the women were separated during the service.
I didn't call for this to end: that's just the nature of going to a wedding in a synagogue.
A wedding is a private affair. A political meeting is not.
Alastair Meeks is right about expecting the unexpected on the EU ref.
Who'd have thought Jeremy Clarkson would come out for a United States of Europe - one currency, one army, and one plug - as he did in the Sunday Times yesterday?
I'll give him credit: unlike many other Europhiles, he's honest about the direction of travel he wants. Now, as it happens, I disagree with him. But at least he's not attempt to hoodwink people by suggesting they get "just a little bit pregnant."
Of course we won't go the whole way to getting pregnant, it's just foreplay with a marmoset.
Alastair Meeks is right about expecting the unexpected on the EU ref.
Who'd have thought Jeremy Clarkson would come out for a United States of Europe - one currency, one army, and one plug - as he did in the Sunday Times yesterday?
I'll give him credit: unlike many other Europhiles, he's honest about the direction of travel he wants. Now, as it happens, I disagree with him. But at least he's not attempt to hoodwink people by suggesting they get "just a little bit pregnant."
I can't work out if he really means what he's saying, or if he's just gone a bit SeanT.
The abandonment by the Left (or a significant part of it) of its moral compass in order to flirt with and embrace people and groups who, were they not a bit dark-skinned and/or claiming to be religious, would in other times be described by the Left as fascists is an utter disgrace. Without a moral compass Labour is nothing. Nothing worthwhile, IMO, anyway.
IMO, Labour certainly have a serious problem with this, in the way the Tories in the 80's used to turn a blind eye to fellow travelers who were racist or homophobic.
Agreed. Labour have no moral authority to talk about racism or sexism or homophobia or other similar bad stuff when they, more than any other party, are the ones embracing those most likely to see such stuff as a good thing.
Why should I as a woman vote for a party which embraces those who think it OK for my husband to beat me or for my child to be killed because of their sexuality? At the first whiff of more votes from homophobes and wife-beaters they have abandoned their feminist principles and women and gays. So they can F*** Off into Space, as far as I'm concerned.
When they've understood why the choices they've made are bad ones and turned away from those choices and apologised, then perhaps they might be let into polite society and I might consider engaging with them again. Meanwhile I'll hang on to those Labour people I know personally who share my concerns and are equally concerned / appalled etc.
Apropos of nothing, I was (re-)reading a Dorothy L Sayers novel yesterday, and one of the characters said: "He's my man, he's got a right to hit me."
There was an article about domestic violence in the Sunday papers where a lot of the victims took that attitude. And one whole story line in the Archers is based on just this view: the victim accepting the responsibility for what happens to her because she believes she is not worth it.
Bullies will always want to dominate others. That, regrettably, is probably a part of human nature. But there is no earthly reason why we should indulge such people. And those who do deserve censure not praise.
Sadly, it's enormously common for victims of rape, torture, and other forms of abuse to blame themselves for what took place. I wonder if, for some people, it's a coping mechanism.
Alastair Meeks is right about expecting the unexpected on the EU ref.
Who'd have thought Jeremy Clarkson would come out for a United States of Europe - one currency, one army, and one plug - as he did in the Sunday Times yesterday?
I'll give him credit: unlike many other Europhiles, he's honest about the direction of travel he wants. Now, as it happens, I disagree with him. But at least he's not attempt to hoodwink people by suggesting they get "just a little bit pregnant."
I can't work out if he really means what he's saying, or if he's just gone a bit SeanT.
What! You mean he might be desperate to keep his highly paid column and is delivering clickbait???
How ironic that as Tom Watson is undertaking his tawdry "Urgent Question" (PR stunt) the Queen and PM are at Westminster Abbey for Commonwealth Day Service.
I suppose it makes the Labour Party relevant at least for half an hour! But what a waste of Parliamentary time.
It's not either or, though, is it? First, it's segregated meetings at mosques. Then it turns into segregated meetings at universities because the speaker doesn't like it. Then we have segregation of pupils in primary schools. And an attitude to the female of the species which thinks that "she" is worth less than a "he" is going to make it easier for those many "shes" of many ages to be raped and to be ignored by the authorities.
No, I don't think I agree. Like a lot of slippery slope arguments, it elides things one doesn't feel are sensible with things which are monstrous, and implies that one must lead to the other. I think that standing up to abuse and belittling of women is absolutely crucial, but demanding that they sit in the same space rather than a parallel space is not. And if one attacks both, it risks devaluing the important part, because it suggests a rejection of the entire culture rather than only of the parts that are actually harmful. Apart from being dubious as an attitude (all our cultures have peculiarities, frankly), it is an ineffective approach.
The abandonment by the Left (or a significant part of it) of its moral compass in order to flirt with and embrace people and groups who, were they not a bit dark-skinned and/or claiming to be religious, would in other times be described by the Left as fascists is an utter disgrace. Without a moral compass Labour is nothing. Nothing worthwhile, IMO, anyway.
IMO, Labour certainly have a serious problem with this, in the way the Tories in the 80's used to turn a blind eye to fellow travelers who were racist or homophobic.
Agreed. Labour have no moral authority to talk about racism or sexism or homophobia or other similar bad stuff when they, more than any other party, are the ones embracing those most likely to see such stuff as a good thing.
Why should I as a woman vote for a party which embraces those who think it OK for my husband to beat me or for my child to be killed because of their sexuality? At the first whiff of more votes from homophobes and wife-beaters they have abandoned their feminist principles and women and gays. So they can F*** Off into Space, as far as I'm concerned.
When they've understood why the choices they've made are bad ones and turned away from those choices and apologised, then perhaps they might be let into polite society and I might consider engaging with them again. Meanwhile I'll hang on to those Labour people I know personally who share my concerns and are equally concerned / appalled etc.
Apropos of nothing, I was (re-)reading a Dorothy L Sayers novel yesterday, and one of the characters said: "He's my man, he's got a right to hit me."
There was an article about domestic violence in the Sunday papers where a lot of the victims took that attitude. And one whole story line in the Archers is based on just this view: the victim accepting the responsibility for what happens to her because she believes she is not worth it.
Bullies will always want to dominate others. That, regrettably, is probably a part of human nature. But there is no earthly reason why we should indulge such people. And those who do deserve censure not praise.
Sadly, it's enormously common for victims of rape, torture, and other forms of abuse to blame themselves for what took place. I wonder if, for some people, it's a coping mechanism.
It's a very effective psychological trick by manipulative bullies.
The self-esteem and confidence of the victim gets knocked so low they don't think they deserve anything better and don't have the internal strength of will to break free of it anymore either.
Labour’s Dennis Skinner says he has never been to the Palace. He says that to him the most strange aspect of this is: “What on earth was the Queen doing confiding in Clegg?”
Grayling says he hopes Skinner will get to go to the Palace before he ends his career.
Labour’s Dennis Skinner says he has never been to the Palace. He says that to him the most strange aspect of this is: “What on earth was the Queen doing confiding in Clegg?”
Grayling says he hopes Skinner will get to go to the Palace before he ends his career.
Labour’s Dennis Skinner says he has never been to the Palace. He says that to him the most strange aspect of this is: “What on earth was the Queen doing confiding in Clegg?”
Grayling says he hopes Skinner will get to go to the Palace before he ends his career.
And they wonder why people feel detached from politics and that there is this widely held belief that politicians don't live in the real world...
IMO, Labour certainly have a serious problem with this, in the way the Tories in the 80's used to turn a blind eye to fellow travelers who were racist or homophobic.
Agreed. Labour have no moral authority to talk about racism or sexism or homophobia or other similar bad stuff when they, more than any other party, are the ones embracing those most likely to see such stuff as a good thing.
Why should I as a woman vote for a party which embraces those who think it OK for my husband to beat me or for my child to be killed because of their sexuality? At the first whiff of more votes from homophobes and wife-beaters they have abandoned their feminist principles and women and gays. So they can F*** Off into Space, as far as I'm concerned.
When they've understood why the choices they've made are bad ones and turned away from those choices and apologised, then perhaps they might be let into polite society and I might consider engaging with them again. Meanwhile I'll hang on to those Labour people I know personally who share my concerns and are equally concerned / appalled etc.
Apropos of nothing, I was (re-)reading a Dorothy L Sayers novel yesterday, and one of the characters said: "He's my man, he's got a right to hit me."
There was an article about domestic violence in the Sunday papers where a lot of the victims took that attitude. And one whole story line in the Archers is based on just this view: the victim accepting the responsibility for what happens to her because she believes she is not worth it.
Bullies will always want to dominate others. That, regrettably, is probably a part of human nature. But there is no earthly reason why we should indulge such people. And those who do deserve censure not praise.
Sadly, it's enormously common for victims of rape, torture, and other forms of abuse to blame themselves for what took place. I wonder if, for some people, it's a coping mechanism.
It's a very effective psychological trick by manipulative bullies.
The self-esteem and confidence of the victim gets knocked so low they don't think they deserve anything better and don't have the internal strength of will to break free of it anymore either.
Apropos of nothing, I was (re-)reading a Dorothy L Sayers novel yesterday, and one of the characters said: "He's my man, he's got a right to hit me."
There was an article about domestic violence in the Sunday papers where a lot of the victims took that attitude. And one whole story line in the Archers is based on just this view: the victim accepting the responsibility for what happens to her because she believes she is not worth it.
Bullies will always want to dominate others. That, regrettably, is probably a part of human nature. But there is no earthly reason why we should indulge such people. And those who do deserve censure not praise.
Sadly, it's enormously common for victims of rape, torture, and other forms of abuse to blame themselves for what took place. I wonder if, for some people, it's a coping mechanism.
Well, if you have young children and/or have invested emotionally in the relationship, then it is very hard indeed to admit to yourself that you have made a mistake. Plus you may be emotionally browbeaten so that you are no longer thinking clearly. When something goes wrong it is very hard for anyone to say that they are not at fault in some way. Bullies prey on that and can be very charming as well. And women are (at the risk of stereotyping) very good at internalising what others think of them and/or of taking responsibility for others, even at the cost of taking responsibility for the bad things that other people do to them, bizarre as that may seem.
Domestic abuse is not limited to particular cultures of course (nor are women its only victims). So this is a complex subject. But that makes it even more imperative not to collude in or turn a blind eye to cultural views and practices which may make such abuse more likely and/or more hidden.
IMO, Labour certainly have a serious problem with this, in the way the Tories in the 80's used to turn a blind eye to fellow travelers who were racist or homophobic.
Agreed. Labour have no moral authority to talk about racism or sexism or homophobia or other similar bad stuff when they, more than any other party, are the ones embracing those most likely to see such stuff as a good thing.
Why should I as a woman vote for a party which embraces those who think it OK for my husband to beat me or for my child to be killed because of their sexuality? At the first whiff of more votes from homophobes and wife-beaters they have abandoned their feminist principles and women and gays. So they can F*** Off into Space, as far as I'm concerned.
When they've understood why the choices they've made are bad ones and turned away from those choices and apologised, then perhaps they might be let into polite society and I might consider engaging with them again. Meanwhile I'll hang on to those Labour people I know personally who share my concerns and are equally concerned / appalled etc.
Apropos of nothing, I was (re-)reading a Dorothy L Sayers novel yesterday, and one of the characters said: "He's my man, he's got a right to hit me."
There was an article about domestic violence in the Sunday papers where a lot of the victims took that attitude. And one whole story line in the Archers is based on just this view: the victim accepting the responsibility for what happens to her because she believes she is not worth it.
Bullies will always want to dominate others. That, regrettably, is probably a part of human nature. But there is no earthly reason why we should indulge such people. And those who do deserve censure not praise.
Sadly, it's enormously common for victims of rape, torture, and other forms of abuse to blame themselves for what took place. I wonder if, for some people, it's a coping mechanism.
It's a very effective psychological trick by manipulative bullies.
The self-esteem and confidence of the victim gets knocked so low they don't think they deserve anything better and don't have the internal strength of will to break free of it anymore either.
The abandonment by the Left (or a significant part of it) of its moral compass in order to flirt with and embrace people and groups who, were they not a bit dark-skinned and/or claiming to be religious, would in other times be described by the Left as fascists is an utter disgrace. Without a moral compass Labour is nothing. Nothing worthwhile, IMO, anyway.
IMO, Labour certainly have a serious problem with this, in the way the Tories in the 80's used to turn a blind eye to fellow travelers who were racist or homophobic.
homophobes and wife-beaters they have abandoned their feminist principles and women and gays. So they can F*** Off into Space, as far as I'm concerned.
When they've understood why the choices they've made are bad ones and turned away from those choices and apologised, then perhaps they might be let into polite society and I might consider engaging with them again. Meanwhile I'll hang on to those Labour people I know personally who share my concerns and are equally concerned / appalled etc.
Apropos of nothing, I was (re-)reading a Dorothy L Sayers novel yesterday, and one of the characters said: "He's my man, he's got a right to hit me."
There was an article about domestic violence in the Sunday papers where a lot of the victims took that attitude. And one whole story line in the Archers is based on just this view: the victim accepting the responsibility for what happens to her because she believes she is not worth it.
Bullies will always want to dominate others. That, regrettably, is probably a part of human nature. But there is no earthly reason why we should indulge such people. And those who do deserve censure not praise.
Sadly, it's enormously common for victims of rape, torture, and other forms of abuse to blame themselves for what took place. I wonder if, for some people, it's a coping mechanism.
It's a very effective psychological trick by manipulative bullies.
The self-esteem and confidence of the victim gets knocked so low they don't think they deserve anything better and don't have the internal strength of will to break free of it anymore either.
It drove Erin Pizzey to distraction: didn't she think it as bad as the physical abuse itself?
Alastair Meeks is right about expecting the unexpected on the EU ref.
Who'd have thought Jeremy Clarkson would come out for a United States of Europe - one currency, one army, and one plug - as he did in the Sunday Times yesterday?
I'll give him credit: unlike many other Europhiles, he's honest about the direction of travel he wants. Now, as it happens, I disagree with him. But at least he's not attempt to hoodwink people by suggesting they get "just a little bit pregnant."
I can't work out if he really means what he's saying, or if he's just gone a bit SeanT.
What! You mean he might be desperate to keep his highly paid column and is delivering clickbait???
It's not either or, though, is it? First, it's segregated meetings at mosques. Then it turns into segregated meetings at universities because the speaker doesn't like it. Then we have segregation of pupils in primary schools. And an attitude to the female of the species which thinks that "she" is worth less than a "he" is going to make it easier for those many "shes" of many ages to be raped and to be ignored by the authorities.
No, I don't think I agree. Like a lot of slippery slope arguments, it elides things one doesn't feel are sensible with things which are monstrous, and implies that one must lead to the other. I think that standing up to abuse and belittling of women is absolutely crucial, but demanding that they sit in the same space rather than a parallel space is not. And if one attacks both, it risks devaluing the important part, because it suggests a rejection of the entire culture rather than only of the parts that are actually harmful. Apart from being dubious as an attitude (all our cultures have peculiarities, frankly), it is an ineffective approach.
I find your approach odd. You seem to find it very difficult to understand that there is a common theme to all of these items: a hatred or contempt for women, a belief that they are lesser beings or less worthy of protection, education, rights. You seem to think that some of this is "not being sensible" and others "monstrous". Well, I agree that child rape is monstrous.
But unlike you I reject a culture which views women as lesser beings and not just those bits of it which lead to child rape. A culture which says that girls should be denied education or a role in the public space is not acceptable provided the men from such a culture manage, through heroic self-control, not to rape the women they think not as good as them.
@JGForsyth: Suspect we'll see Corbynistas tweeting this poll out en masse. But it is just 1 poll, and doesn't tally with others https://t.co/WlBaUm6QFX
The man who months before the GE kept on predicting a Tory Majority for months, has chipped in
@StephenDFisher: My first Brexit referendum forecast with @alanjrenwick : Remain 58% vote 87% chance of winning. Based on x-nat historic and current uk polls
That's not exactly a surprise. I can't see even on PB anyone predicting a Leave win.
Labour’s Dennis Skinner says he has never been to the Palace. He says that to him the most strange aspect of this is: “What on earth was the Queen doing confiding in Clegg?”
Grayling says he hopes Skinner will get to go to the Palace before he ends his career.
And they wonder why people feel detached from politics and that there is this widely held belief that politicians don't live in the real world...
I find it extraordinary that someone who's been an MP for close to half a century hasn't had a visit to the Palace at some point. I'd have thought that just about all of them would get there for some reason or another every decade or so, at the outside.
I find it extraordinary that someone who's been an MP for close to half a century hasn't had a visit to the Palace at some point. I'd have thought that just about all of them would get there for some reason or another every decade or so, at the outside.
He was trying to say Privy Council but couldn't remember the words, so he said Palace instead
Labour’s Dennis Skinner says he has never been to the Palace. He says that to him the most strange aspect of this is: “What on earth was the Queen doing confiding in Clegg?”
Grayling says he hopes Skinner will get to go to the Palace before he ends his career.
And they wonder why people feel detached from politics and that there is this widely held belief that politicians don't live in the real world...
I find it extraordinary that someone who's been an MP for close to half a century hasn't had a visit to the Palace at some point. I'd have thought that just about all of them would get there for some reason or another every decade or so, at the outside.
? Do MPs mostly go to the palace ?
Thought it was more a PM/Minister thing at the most.
Vicki Kirby’s boyfriend Barry Faulkner is the chair of Woking Labour. His Facebook posts give an insight into what the couple discuss over the dinner table. In one post, made after Kirby’s suspension from the Labour Party, Faulkner sends her a link to a video titled “ISIS exposed 100% as CIA operation”, commenting “worth a look at some of this Vicki Kirby”.
Faulkner and Kirby – the chair and vice-chair of Woking Labour – have been publicly sharing content suggesting ISIS is a CIA conspiracy and joking about their own anti-Semitism. Crucially, this happened after Kirby was suspended by Labour, so can be seen as “new evidence”
Listening to Tom Watson's urgent question on Gove, Chris Grayling played a straight bat and the question seemed to get nowhere. However, in the real world has this issue now diminished Gove's role in the leave campaign as he is going to be asked every time the press are near, did he breach Privy Council rules?
@JGForsyth: Suspect we'll see Corbynistas tweeting this poll out en masse. But it is just 1 poll, and doesn't tally with others https://t.co/WlBaUm6QFX
Maybe but it ought to be a warning to the Tories (a) not to be complacent or hubristic; and (b) that voters punish divided parties.
It's not either or, though, is it? First, it's segregated meetings at mosques. Then it turns into segregated meetings at universities because the speaker doesn't like it. Then we have segregation of pupils in primary schools. And an attitude to the female of the species which thinks that "she" is worth less than a "he" is going to make it easier for those many "shes" of many ages to be raped and to be ignored by the authorities.
No, I don't think I agree. Like a lot of slippery slope arguments, it elides things one doesn't feel are sensible with things which are monstrous, and implies that one must lead to the other. I think that standing up to abuse and belittling of women is absolutely crucial, but demanding that they sit in the same space rather than a parallel space is not. And if one attacks both, it risks devaluing the important part, because it suggests a rejection of the entire culture rather than only of the parts that are actually harmful. Apart from being dubious as an attitude (all our cultures have peculiarities, frankly), it is an ineffective approach.
I find your approach odd. You seem to find it very difficult to understand that there is a common theme to all of these items: a hatred or contempt for women, a belief that they are lesser beings or less worthy of protection, education, rights. You seem to think that some of this is "not being sensible" and others "monstrous". Well, I agree that child rape is monstrous.
But unlike you I reject a culture which views women as lesser beings and not just those bits of it which lead to child rape. A culture which says that girls should be denied education or a role in the public space is not acceptable provided the men from such a culture manage, through heroic self-control, not to rape the women they think not as good as them.
Can you imagine 30 years ago a left winger defending gender segregation? In an effort to not upset certain voting blocks, left wingers are now convincing themselves its just a "peculiarity". I feel so alienated from both left and right these days.
@JGForsyth: Suspect we'll see Corbynistas tweeting this poll out en masse. But it is just 1 poll, and doesn't tally with others https://t.co/WlBaUm6QFX
Maybe but it ought to be a warning to the Tories (a) not to be complacent or hubristic; and (b) that voters punish divided parties.
It is not surprising with the Conservatives doing battle over Europe but does anyone think that in a real GE Corbyn's labour would be anywhere near power. Indeed I would expect that by the Autumn with a new Cabinet the Conservatives will regain the initiative
"A simple model based on two predictors — the racial composition of the Democratic primary electorate and a dummy variable for region — explain over 90% of the variance in Hillary Clinton’s vote share in this year’s Democratic primaries through March 8. "
IMO, Labour certainly have a serious problem with this, in the way the Tories in the 80's used to turn a blind eye to fellow travelers who were racist or homophobic.
Agreed. Labour have no moral authority to talk about racism or sexism or homophobia or other similar bad stuff when they, more than any other party, are the ones embracing those most likely to see such stuff as a good thing.
Why should I as a woman vote for a party which embraces those who think it OK for my husband to beat me or for my child to be killed because of their sexuality? At the first whiff of more votes from homophobes and wife-beaters they have abandoned their feminist principles and women and gays. So they can F*** Off into Space, as far as I'm concerned.
When they've understood why the choices they've made are bad ones and turned away from those choices and apologised, then perhaps they might be let into polite society and I might consider engaging with them again. Meanwhile I'll hang on to those Labour people I know personally who share my concerns and are equally concerned / appalled etc.
Apropos of nothing, I was (re-)reading a Dorothy L Sayers novel yesterday, and one of the characters said: "He's my man, he's got a right to hit me."
There was an article about domestic violence in the Sunday papers where a lot of the victims took that attitude. And one whole story line in the Archers is based on just this view: the victim accepting the responsibility for what happens to her because she believes she is not worth it.
Bullies will always want to dominate others. That, regrettably, is probably a part of human nature. But there is no earthly reason why we should indulge such people. And those who do deserve censure not praise.
Sadly, it's enormously common for victims of rape, torture, and other forms of abuse to blame themselves for what took place. I wonder if, for some people, it's a coping mechanism.
It's a very effective psychological trick by manipulative bullies.
The self-esteem and confidence of the victim gets knocked so low they don't think they deserve anything better and don't have the internal strength of will to break free of it anymore either.
Wait, are we talking about SeanT again?
I honestly thought for a moment he was talking about the EU and its supporters!!
@JGForsyth: Suspect we'll see Corbynistas tweeting this poll out en masse. But it is just 1 poll, and doesn't tally with others https://t.co/WlBaUm6QFX
Maybe but it ought to be a warning to the Tories (a) not to be complacent or hubristic; and (b) that voters punish divided parties.
Inevitable. Osborne/Cameron strategy of picking a fight with their party backfires.
@JGForsyth: Suspect we'll see Corbynistas tweeting this poll out en masse. But it is just 1 poll, and doesn't tally with others https://t.co/WlBaUm6QFX
Maybe but it ought to be a warning to the Tories (a) not to be complacent or hubristic; and (b) that voters punish divided parties.
Inevitable. Osborne/Cameron strategy of picking a fight with their party backfires.
George is doing the budget on Wednesday so the Tories will be back to a double figure lead.
@JGForsyth: Suspect we'll see Corbynistas tweeting this poll out en masse. But it is just 1 poll, and doesn't tally with others https://t.co/WlBaUm6QFX
Maybe but it ought to be a warning to the Tories (a) not to be complacent or hubristic; and (b) that voters punish divided parties.
A division of Cameron's own making, a rush to get the referendum done, feeble negotiation, and a laughable result that he personally has been talking up. All of that was avoidable. If he waited until 2017, played hard ball with the EU, and came back with a better deal, he might have a lot more support within his own party and the wider public.
@JGForsyth: Suspect we'll see Corbynistas tweeting this poll out en masse. But it is just 1 poll, and doesn't tally with others https://t.co/WlBaUm6QFX
Maybe but it ought to be a warning to the Tories (a) not to be complacent or hubristic; and (b) that voters punish divided parties.
Inevitable. Osborne/Cameron strategy of picking a fight with their party backfires.
George is doing the budget on Wednesday so the Tories will be back to a double figure lead.
@JGForsyth: Suspect we'll see Corbynistas tweeting this poll out en masse. But it is just 1 poll, and doesn't tally with others https://t.co/WlBaUm6QFX
Maybe but it ought to be a warning to the Tories (a) not to be complacent or hubristic; and (b) that voters punish divided parties.
Inevitable. Osborne/Cameron strategy of picking a fight with their party backfires.
George is doing the budget on Wednesday so the Tories will be back to a double figure lead deficit
"A simple model based on two predictors — the racial composition of the Democratic primary electorate and a dummy variable for region — explain over 90% of the variance in Hillary Clinton’s vote share in this year’s Democratic primaries through March 8. "
A division of Cameron's own making, a rush to get the referendum done, feeble negotiation, and a laughable result that he personally has been talking up. All of that was avoidable. If he waited until 2017, played hard ball with the EU, and came back with a better deal, he might have a lot more support within his own party and the wider public.
And he's supposedly good at politics.
I rather think he's better at politics than his critics, what with becoming PM and all that, and managing to keep the divisions in the Conservative Party under control for nearly a decade so far.
In this particular case, what you say is barmy. How could it possibly have been better to let the thing drag on for two years, allowing the renegotiation to clash with the French and German elections, and leaving less time for the party to regroup after the referendum?
@JGForsyth: Suspect we'll see Corbynistas tweeting this poll out en masse. But it is just 1 poll, and doesn't tally with others https://t.co/WlBaUm6QFX
Maybe but it ought to be a warning to the Tories (a) not to be complacent or hubristic; and (b) that voters punish divided parties.
A division of Cameron's own making, a rush to get the referendum done, feeble negotiation, and a laughable result that he personally has been talking up. All of that was avoidable. If he waited until 2017, played hard ball with the EU, and came back with a better deal, he might have a lot more support within his own party and the wider public.
And he's supposedly good at politics.
Do you truly think a better deal was available. I think it's abundantly clear that the EU either can't or won't give us a better deal. The French would rather see us leave than get what we demand (which is why notions that we'll find a free trade deal without conditions and without free movement I'm skeptical about, but we should I think Vote Leave anyway).
Besides the division would have happened no matter what was negotiated as nothing short of an unconditional Leave recommendation would have satisfied many.
Having recently shared with you my big-priced winner on Steve MccClaren winning the latest round of the sack race, I thought I'd follow this up with a number of reports in the media over the weekend that the next manager of Manchester United would not in fact be Jose Mourinho, the short odds-on favourite but instead the present PSG boss Lauren Blanc, available at fancy odds of 20/1 from SkyBET, Paddy Power and betway.
Personally, I've never been convinced that The Special One would turn out to be the chosen one and certainly Mr. White as a former Man Utd player would be a popular choice. That said, this is a long shot, so I suggest limiting yourself to a few quid maximum and DYOR.
Comments
Peter whoever it was multi-millionaire agribusiness guy was about to blow my anecdotal "yes but how does it affect your industry" analysis out of the water by listing the actual damage EU law does to in this case farming in Lincolnshire.
And.....answer came there none. He complained about the Spanish flouting an existing EU law and...er...that was it. Soubry was excellent (sorry Nick) in asking exactly how EU laws discriminated against him. And he had no answer at all.
And he wanted free movement of people to help the 60% of his workers who are migrants (with Kate Hoey PBUH saying how she would prefer more people from Africa and the Caribbean picking caulis in Lincs).
This really is all game over tbh.
Why should I as a woman vote for a party which embraces those who think it OK for my husband to beat me or for my child to be killed because of their sexuality? At the first whiff of more votes from homophobes and wife-beaters they have abandoned their feminist principles and women and gays. So they can F*** Off into Space, as far as I'm concerned.
When they've understood why the choices they've made are bad ones and turned away from those choices and apologised, then perhaps they might be let into polite society and I might consider engaging with them again. Meanwhile I'll hang on to those Labour people I know personally who share my concerns and are equally concerned / appalled etc.
Also a high number of don't knows in the sample which means the Tories could be higher than they currently are given how Tories are seen in Scotland.
I'll get my coat...
How repellant is it that I have to ask that?
But the argument against Khan and Livingstone and Corbyn and Slaughter and others is that they don't challenge. They give every impression that either they don't care or or, if they do, they don't have the courage to say anything or that they agree. And it is that which repels people like me who think that (a) people are equal under the law (b) the law should be applied equally and (c) it is abhorrent that in 21st century Britain a person's rights (usually but not exclusively a woman's rights) should effectively be determined by her religion and/or the culture of the place where her parents, her grand-parents or great-grand-parents were born.
Central London's population as % of England's population
1801 to 2011 https://t.co/r5zOWpU0E4
Most used languages on Wikipedia by country: https://t.co/kzjxxVSuqa #maps
Nigel4England is probably its biggest isamaphile.
I'm having fun with this
Who'd have thought Jeremy Clarkson would come out for a United States of Europe - one currency, one army, and one plug - as he did in the Sunday Times yesterday?
I fear he maybe successful
@OwenJones84
Any anti-Semite found to be in Labour needs to be booted out on the spot. The end.
@DPJHodges: By the way, the answer to my question is the reason Vicki Kirby thought Labour was the party for her is because it is the party for her.
To cheer your morning.
The small print bottom right is priceless! https://t.co/HNfbwMjTou
I went to an orthodox Jewish wedding. The men and the women were separated during the service.
I didn't call for this to end: that's just the nature of going to a wedding in a synagogue.
Bullies will always want to dominate others. That, regrettably, is probably a part of human nature. But there is no earthly reason why we should indulge such people. And those who do deserve censure not praise.
...and Alastair Meeks is no isamophobe!
Labour’s Kevin Brennan says it would be better if Gove were to come to the Commons and issue a categorical denial.
Grayling says Clegg has said this conversation did not take place, so a denial is unnecessary.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/mar/14/eu-referendum-boris-johnson-criticised-after-accusing-obama-of-hypocrisy-over-brexit-politics-live
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35805010
Love the terminology..."after finding a way through the border fence."...what you mean is broke through it.
I suppose it makes the Labour Party relevant at least for half an hour! But what a waste of Parliamentary time.
The self-esteem and confidence of the victim gets knocked so low they don't think they deserve anything better and don't have the internal strength of will to break free of it anymore either.
Labour’s Dennis Skinner says he has never been to the Palace. He says that to him the most strange aspect of this is: “What on earth was the Queen doing confiding in Clegg?”
Grayling says he hopes Skinner will get to go to the Palace before he ends his career.
Domestic abuse is not limited to particular cultures of course (nor are women its only victims). So this is a complex subject. But that makes it even more imperative not to collude in or turn a blind eye to cultural views and practices which may make such abuse more likely and/or more hidden.
His piss take on German sexual etiquette classes for migrants was hilarious - shout 'Allahu Akbar' on finding the G Spot orgasm.
But unlike you I reject a culture which views women as lesser beings and not just those bits of it which lead to child rape. A culture which says that girls should be denied education or a role in the public space is not acceptable provided the men from such a culture manage, through heroic self-control, not to rape the women they think not as good as them.
https://twitter.com/StephenDFisher/status/708222455362543616
@ICMResearch @guardian_clark March #poll. @Conservatives 36% @UKLabour 36% @LibDems 8% @UKIP 11%, @TheGreenParty 3% Others 7%. Hmmm.
Thought it was more a PM/Minister thing at the most.
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/709410474794860544
Vicki Kirby’s boyfriend Barry Faulkner is the chair of Woking Labour. His Facebook posts give an insight into what the couple discuss over the dinner table. In one post, made after Kirby’s suspension from the Labour Party, Faulkner sends her a link to a video titled “ISIS exposed 100% as CIA operation”, commenting “worth a look at some of this Vicki Kirby”.
Faulkner and Kirby – the chair and vice-chair of Woking Labour – have been publicly sharing content suggesting ISIS is a CIA conspiracy and joking about their own anti-Semitism. Crucially, this happened after Kirby was suspended by Labour, so can be seen as “new evidence”
http://order-order.com/2016/03/14/new-evidence-emerges-isis-100-cia-operation/
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/a-simple-model-for-predicting-hillary-clintons-vote-in-the-march-15-democratic-primaries/
And he's supposedly good at politics.
I thought Labour would be much higher.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/03/14/my_dad_and_donald_trump_129964.html
In this particular case, what you say is barmy. How could it possibly have been better to let the thing drag on for two years, allowing the renegotiation to clash with the French and German elections, and leaving less time for the party to regroup after the referendum?
Will give us an idea if this ICM poll is a rogue or a harbinger
Besides the division would have happened no matter what was negotiated as nothing short of an unconditional Leave recommendation would have satisfied many.
***** BETTING POST *****
Having recently shared with you my big-priced winner on Steve MccClaren winning the latest round of the sack race, I thought I'd follow this up with a number of reports in the media over the weekend that the next manager of Manchester United would not in fact be Jose Mourinho, the short odds-on favourite but instead the present PSG boss Lauren Blanc, available at fancy odds of 20/1 from SkyBET, Paddy Power and betway.
Personally, I've never been convinced that The Special One would turn out to be the chosen one and certainly Mr. White as a former Man Utd player would be a popular choice.
That said, this is a long shot, so I suggest limiting yourself to a few quid maximum and DYOR.