From the speech Nick Palmer recommended from Alan Johnson. Here is what he says about the 1975 referendum.
“It’s worth mentioning two aspects from that campaign which resulted in an overwhelming majority to stay in the European Community. The first is to expose the nonsense that one sometimes hears from the Eurosceptics that the British people thought they were voting for a market. All the debate on both sides in 1975 was about political union. Indeed, the creation of a European Parliament was central to the argument.”
So what is the evidence that political union was the main theme of the 1975 referendum? Here is a link to the text from the Government official leaflet. http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm It has 50 mentions of the “market” and has no mention of the phrase “political union” it is just not there.
This is a blatent re-writing history. But since no one notices Alan Johnson no one objects.
It seems a bit of a silly argument. The whole thing about people being tricked in 1975 is that it was an argument for having another referendum. Well, we're having that referendum so let's get on with it.
Johnson is stating that voters had presented to them by both sides that we were staying/getting into a political union. Where is the evidence?
Oh, I'm not arguing against your point. I'm simply saying that whatever the right and wrongs of 1975 it doesn't really matter and if Alan Johnson is arguing about that then it says to me he has little to say about current affairs. I suppose the only relevance of 1975 is that us on the Out side could argue that they were lying then and they are lying now.
I agree with Nick on the need for positive messages from both.
Lance Forman was on BBC News and put forward the view that the positive side for out is that if we want the 21st century to be Britain's then we need to be nibble and be out.
Regarding Nick's "This means giving Alan Johnson a prominent role. He’s making plenty of speeches but they aren’t being reported." problem is that Alan is very short of the understanding of what the positives of the EU are beyond the few bullet points he is given by the PR. When challenged Alan does not have the depth of knowledge to defend each facile argument he makes be it on the "3 million" or the "security" or "immigration". But as I do want LEAVE I would welcome Alan to be made the leading man.... PS Has Alan actually made positive points for REMAIN?
Yes - see e,g, the speech I linked to ("click on "speeches" in the header).
Blackburn is of course right that having argued for a positive campaign I added what I thought was an effective negative message, if we were going to do that. We professionals try to swing both ways . I'm not saying there should be no negative messages - only that there should be some of each.
There are some odd claims in the speech from Alan Johnson. For example "because the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its successors help protect the islanders from Argentinian aggression." How exactly did the Treaty of Rome protect the Falklands from invasion in 1982? I always understood that we had to send a British only Task Force to evict the Argentine invasion. But maybe Mr Johnson knows differently? I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands.
My understanding is that Mitterrand immediately stood behind the UK, unlike the USA.
But the Treaty of Rome did not stop Argentine aggression then.
You clearly know little about how the French helped following the Exocet attacks on the British fleet.
But the Johnson claim is about preventing Argentine aggression. The French (and others) did not achieve that. Now if the Johnson claim was that they helped to get them out under the Treaty of Rome.... that would be a different claim subject to the wording it contains.
I agree with Nick on the need for positive messages from both.
Lance Forman was on BBC News and put forward the view that the positive side for out is that if we want the 21st century to be Britain's then we need to be nibble and be out.
Regarding Nick's "This means giving Alan Johnson a prominent role. He’s making plenty of speeches but they aren’t being reported." problem is that Alan is very short of the understanding of what the positives of the EU are beyond the few bullet points he is given by the PR. When challenged Alan does not have the depth of knowledge to defend each facile argument he makes be it on the "3 million" or the "security" or "immigration". But as I do want LEAVE I would welcome Alan to be made the leading man.... PS Has Alan actually made positive points for REMAIN?
Yes - see e,g, the speech I linked to ("click on "speeches" in the header).
Blackburn is of course right that having argued for a positive campaign I added what I thought was an effective negative message, if we were going to do that. We professionals try to swing both ways . I'm not saying there should be no negative messages - only that there should be some of each.
There are some odd claims in the speech from Alan Johnson. For example "because the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its successors help protect the islanders from Argentinian aggression." How exactly did the Treaty of Rome protect the Falklands from invasion in 1982? I always understood that we had to send a British only Task Force to evict the Argentine invasion. But maybe Mr Johnson knows differently? I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands.
My understanding is that Mitterrand immediately stood behind the UK, unlike the USA.
But the Treaty of Rome did not stop Argentine aggression then.
You clearly know little about how the French helped following the Exocet attacks on the British fleet.
Are you claiming that they helped *because* of the EU?
Edit: Not really asking you specifically ... is *anyone* claiming that?
I agree with Nick on the need for positive messages from both.
Lance Forman was on BBC News and put forward the view that the positive side for out is that if we want the 21st century to be Britain's then we need to be nibble and be out.
Regarding Nick's "This means giving Alan Johnson a prominent role. He’s making plenty of speeches but they aren’t being reported." problem is that Alan is very short of the understanding of what the positives of the EU are beyond the few bullet points he is given by the PR. When challenged Alan does not have the depth of knowledge to defend each facile argument he makes be it on the "3 million" or the "security" or "immigration". But as I do want LEAVE I would welcome Alan to be made the leading man.... PS Has Alan actually made positive points for REMAIN?
Yes - see e,g, the speech I linked to ("click on "speeches" in the header).
Blackburn is of course right that having argued for a positive campaign I added what I thought was an effective negative message, if we were going to do that. We professionals try to swing both ways . I'm not saying there should be no negative messages - only that there should be some of each.
There are some odd claims in the speech from Alan Johnson. For example "because the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its successors help protect the islanders from Argentinian aggression." How exactly did the Treaty of Rome protect the Falklands from invasion in 1982? I always understood that we had to send a British only Task Force to evict the Argentine invasion. But maybe Mr Johnson knows differently? I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands.
My understanding is that Mitterrand immediately stood behind the UK, unlike the USA.
But the Treaty of Rome did not stop Argentine aggression then.
You clearly know little about how the French helped following the Exocet attacks on the British fleet.
But the Johnson claim is about preventing Argentine aggression. The French (and others) did not achieve that. Now if the Johnson claim was that they helped to get them out under the Treaty of Rome.... that would be a different claim subject to the wording it contains.
You're over-analysing. The Argentinians' previous experience of trying it on was that the two major European powers stuck together. That's a deterrent.
From the speech Nick Palmer recommended from Alan Johnson. Here is what he says about the 1975 referendum.
“It’s worth mentioning two aspects from that campaign which resulted in an overwhelming majority to stay in the European Community. The first is to expose the nonsense that one sometimes hears from the Eurosceptics that the British people thought they were voting for a market. All the debate on both sides in 1975 was about political union. Indeed, the creation of a European Parliament was central to the argument.”
So what is the evidence that political union was the main theme of the 1975 referendum? Here is a link to the text from the Government official leaflet. http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm It has 50 mentions of the “market” and has no mention of the phrase “political union” it is just not there.
This is a blatent re-writing history. But since no one notices Alan Johnson no one objects.
It seems a bit of a silly argument. The whole thing about people being tricked in 1975 is that it was an argument for having another referendum. Well, we're having that referendum so let's get on with it.
Johnson is stating that voters had presented to them by both sides that we were staying/getting into a political union. Where is the evidence?
Oh, I'm not arguing against your point. I'm simply saying that whatever the right and wrongs of 1975 it doesn't really matter and if Alan Johnson is arguing about that then it says to me he has little to say about current affairs. I suppose the only relevance of 1975 is that us on the Out side could argue that they were lying then and they are lying now.
" I suppose the only relevance of 1975 is that us on the Out side could argue that they were lying then and they are lying now."
If the evidence supports it. Past actions and past threats are part of the argument. Witness the "if we do not join the euro" line from many in the REMAIN camp.
I agree with Nick on the need for positive messages from both.
Lance Forman was on BBC News and put forward the view that the positive side for out is that if we want the 21st century to be Britain's then we need to be nibble and be out.
Regarding Nick's "This means giving Alan Johnson a prominent role. He’s making plenty of speeches but they aren’t being reported." problem is that Alan is very short of the understanding of what the positives of the EU are beyond the few bullet points he is given by the PR. When challenged Alan does not have the depth of knowledge to defend each facile argument he makes be it on the "3 million" or the "security" or "immigration". But as I do want LEAVE I would welcome Alan to be made the leading man.... PS Has Alan actually made positive points for REMAIN?
Yes - see e,g, the speech I linked to ("click on "speeches" in the header).
Blackburn is of course right that having argued for a positive campaign I added what I thought was an effective negative message, if we were going to do that. We professionals try to swing both ways . I'm not saying there should be no negative messages - only that there should be some of each.
There are some odd claims in the speech from Alan Johnson. For example "because the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its successors help protect the islanders from Argentinian aggression." How exactly did the Treaty of Rome protect the Falklands from invasion in 1982? I always understood that we had to send a British only Task Force to evict the Argentine invasion. But maybe Mr Johnson knows differently? I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands.
My understanding is that Mitterrand immediately stood behind the UK, unlike the USA.
But the Treaty of Rome did not stop Argentine aggression then.
You said "I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands." I was just pointing out that - to use your phrase - One of the Treaty of Rome signatories was actually a lot more helpful to us during the Falklands war than the US.
I agree with Nick on the need for positive messages from both.
Lance Forman was on BBC News and put forward the view that the positive side for out is that if we want the 21st century to be Britain's then we need to be nibble and be out.
Regarding Nick's "This means giving Alan Johnson a prominent role. He’s making plenty of speeches but they aren’t being reported." problem is that Alan is very short of the understanding of what the positives of the EU are beyond the few bullet points he is given by the PR. When challenged Alan does not have the depth of knowledge to defend each facile argument he makes be it on the "3 million" or the "security" or "immigration". But as I do want LEAVE I would welcome Alan to be made the leading man.... PS Has Alan actually made positive points for REMAIN?
Yes - see e,g, the speech I linked to ("click on "speeches" in the header).
Blackburn is of course right that having argued for a positive campaign I added what I thought was an effective negative message, if we were going to do that. We professionals try to swing both ways . I'm not saying there should be no negative messages - only that there should be some of each.
There are some odd claims in the speech from Alan Johnson. For example "because the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its successors help protect the islanders from Argentinian aggression." How exactly did the Treaty of Rome protect the Falklands from invasion in 1982? I always understood that we had to send a British only Task Force to evict the Argentine invasion. But maybe Mr Johnson knows differently? I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands.
My understanding is that Mitterrand immediately stood behind the UK, unlike the USA.
But the Treaty of Rome did not stop Argentine aggression then.
You said "I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands." I was just pointing out that - to use your phrase - One of the Treaty of Rome signatories was actually a lot more helpful to us during the Falklands war than the US.
Tbf we did get Sidewinders from the US which were quite useful.
I agree with Nick on the need for positive messages from both.
Lance Forman was on BBC News and put forward the view that the positive side for out is that if we want the 21st century to be Britain's then we need to be nibble and be out.
Regarding Nick's "This means giving Alan Johnson a prominent role. He’s making plenty of speeches but they aren’t being reported." problem is that Alan is very short of the understanding of what the positives of the EU are beyond the few bullet points he is given by the PR. When challenged Alan does not have the depth of knowledge to defend each facile argument he makes be it on the "3 million" or the "security" or "immigration". But as I do want LEAVE I would welcome Alan to be made the leading man.... PS Has Alan actually made positive points for REMAIN?
Yes - see e,g, the speech I linked to ("click on "speeches" in the header).
Blackburn is of course right that having argued for a positive campaign I added what I thought was an effective negative message, if we were going to do that. We professionals try to swing both ways . I'm not saying there should be no negative messages - only that there should be some of each.
There are some odd claims in the speech from Alan Johnson. For example "because the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its successors help protect the islanders from Argentinian aggression." How exactly did the Treaty of Rome protect the Falklands from invasion in 1982? I always understood that we had to send a British only Task Force to evict the Argentine invasion. But maybe Mr Johnson knows differently? I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands.
My understanding is that Mitterrand immediately stood behind the UK, unlike the USA.
But the Treaty of Rome did not stop Argentine aggression then.
You clearly know little about how the French helped following the Exocet attacks on the British fleet.
And you clearly don't know about how the French continued to help Argentina throughout the war including making sure their exocet launchers were working..
That is not to say that the official French position was not to help the UK but according to that article there were sections of French establishment who were helping the Argentines.
I disagree, No won in Scotland by relentlessly plugging fear and the risks of breakaway and economic dangers, Remain needs to do the same. In referendums passion and positivity rarely are decisive what is decisive is people looking at the risks involved and the threat to their bank balance
But the Yes vote kept increasing over the campaign period. The fear approach slowed down Yes's momentum, it didn't make people vote No.
In general yes voters made up their mind far later than no voters so undecided people listenened to months of project fear then decided on yes.
Not that I would fancy their job, but you have the hard as nails with shitty equipment Peshmerga fighting their nuts off, then the Iraqi military run off leaving all this good US equipment behind.
"While the Peshmerga only have two brigades equipped with U.S. weapons, the Iraqi Army is fully equipped with weapons, armored vehicles, and artillery. Many of the Kurdish Peshmerga have only their self-armored trucks and their old Kalashnikovs. And, still, they advance more quickly than Iraqi government forces. "
'there were sections of French establishment who were helping the Argentines.'
Indeed, and equally there were sections of the US establishment that were very unhelpful. So the moral of the story is we need to be prepared to defend our own interests where necessary.
It's the fact that we did just that, and successfully, that still irks people on the left of British politics (including Europhile 'Tories') today.
But it was what made the Falklands action so popular at the time.
I agree with Nick on the need for positive messages from both.
Lance Forman was on BBC News and put forward the view that the positive side for out is that if we want the 21st century to be Britain's then we need to be nibble and be out.
Regarding Nick's "This means giving Alan Johnson a prominent role. He’s making plenty of speeches but they aren’t being reported." problem is that Alan is very short of the understanding of what the positives of the EU are beyond the few bullet points he is given by the PR. When challenged Alan does not have the depth of knowledge to defend each facile argument he makes be it on the "3 million" or the "security" or "immigration". But as I do want LEAVE I would welcome Alan to be made the leading man.... PS Has Alan actually made positive points for REMAIN?
Yes - see e,g, the speech I linked to ("click on "speeches" in the header).
Blackburn is of course right that having argued for a positive campaign I added what I thought was an effective negative message, if we were going to do that. We professionals try to swing both ways . I'm not saying there should be no negative messages - only that there should be some of each.
There are some odd claims in the speech from Alan Johnson. For example "because the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its successors help protect the islanders from Argentinian aggression." How exactly did the Treaty of Rome protect the Falklands from invasion in 1982? I always understood that we had to send a British only Task Force to evict the Argentine invasion. But maybe Mr Johnson knows differently? I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands.
My understanding is that Mitterrand immediately stood behind the UK, unlike the USA.
But the Treaty of Rome did not stop Argentine aggression then.
You said "I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands." I was just pointing out that - to use your phrase - One of the Treaty of Rome signatories was actually a lot more helpful to us during the Falklands war than the US.
Tbf we did get Sidewinders from the US which were quite useful.
According to this article, cited by me in pretty well complete ignorance, that's a fine example of British understatement.
I agree with Nick on the need for positive messages from both.
Lance Forman was on BBC News and put forward the view that the positive side for out is that if we want the 21st century to be Britain's then we need to be nibble and be out.
Regarding Nick's "This means giving Alan Johnson a prominent role. He’s making plenty of speeches but they aren’t being reported." problem is that Alan is very short of the understanding of what the positives of the EU are beyond the few bullet points he is given by the PR. When challenged Alan does not have the depth of knowledge to defend each facile argument he makes be it on the "3 million" or the "security" or "immigration". But as I do want LEAVE I would welcome Alan to be made the leading man.... PS Has Alan actually made positive points for REMAIN?
Yes - see e,g, the speech I linked to ("click on "speeches" in the header).
Blackburn is of course right that having argued for a positive campaign I added what I thought was an effective negative message, if we were going to do that. We professionals try to swing both ways . I'm not saying there should be no negative messages - only that there should be some of each.
There are some odd claims in the speech from Alan Johnson. For example "because the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its successors help protect the islanders from Argentinian aggression." How exactly did the Treaty of Rome protect the Falklands from invasion in 1982? I always understood that we had to send a British only Task Force to evict the Argentine invasion. But maybe Mr Johnson knows differently? I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands.
My understanding is that Mitterrand immediately stood behind the UK, unlike the USA.
But the Treaty of Rome did not stop Argentine aggression then.
You clearly know little about how the French helped following the Exocet attacks on the British fleet.
And you clearly don't know about how the French continued to help Argentina throughout the war including making sure their exocet launchers were working..
That is not to say that the official French position was not to help the UK but according to that article there were sections of French establishment who were helping the Argentines.
Hardly "the French". Some French employees of a French company acting without the knowledge of the French government.
I disagree, No won in Scotland by relentlessly plugging fear and the risks of breakaway and economic dangers, Remain needs to do the same. In referendums passion and positivity rarely are decisive what is decisive is people looking at the risks involved and the threat to their bank balance
But the Yes vote kept increasing over the campaign period. The fear approach slowed down Yes's momentum, it didn't make people vote No.
In general yes voters made up their mind far later than no voters so undecided people listenened to months of project fear then decided on yes.
Maybe false memory, but wasn't it in the aftermath of the second TV debate that Yes surged? A very partisan audience unsettled Darling, who failed to pick up on a series of Salmond fibs about the currency issue.
Then, in May 2015, when Mexican forces tried to push into CJNG territory, the crime group responded by mounting a vicious counterstrike: burning gas stations, blocking roads with flaming semi-trucks, and using an RPG to blow a twin-engine Cougar attack chopper out of the sky, killing eight soldiers and a member of the federal police.
“The cartel uses such displays in order to shock the authorities,” says criminologist Benitez, when asked about El Mencho’s strong-arm tactics. “It’s a way of warning government to back off, and to show them who’s the boss.”
As for high-powered weapons like the shoulder-fired rocket launcher used by cartel gunmen to take down the chopper, Benitez says it was “probably bought on the black market in the U.S.”
I agree with Nick on the need for positive messages from both.
Lance Forman was on BBC News and put forward the view that the positive side for out is that if we want the 21st century to be Britain's then we need to be nibble and be out.
Regarding Nick's "This means giving Alan Johnson a prominent role. He’s making plenty of speeches but they aren’t being reported." problem is that Alan is very short of the understanding of what the positives of the EU are beyond the few bullet points he is given by the PR. When challenged Alan does not have the depth of knowledge to defend each facile argument he makes be it on the "3 million" or the "security" or "immigration". But as I do want LEAVE I would welcome Alan to be made the leading man.... PS Has Alan actually made positive points for REMAIN?
Yes - see e,g, the speech I linked to ("click on "speeches" in the header).
Blackburn is of course right that having argued for a positive campaign I added what I thought was an effective negative message, if we were going to do that. We professionals try to swing both ways . I'm not saying there should be no negative messages - only that there should be some of each.
There are some odd claims in the speech from Alan Johnson. For example "because the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its successors help protect the islanders from Argentinian aggression." How exactly did the Treaty of Rome protect the Falklands from invasion in 1982? I always understood that we had to send a British only Task Force to evict the Argentine invasion. But maybe Mr Johnson knows differently? I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands.
My understanding is that Mitterrand immediately stood behind the UK, unlike the USA.
I think he sold the Argies the Exocets and then, as soon as he'd received payment, gave the guidance codes to the Brits (basically making the missiles useless)...
A kind Muslim man expresses his love for his British Christian country, and for Jesus, and wishes everyone to come together in peace, and then says aHappy Easter
So he is brutally sliced to death by another Muslim.
I find it impossible to express my feelings about Islam, right now, without risking OGH getting a visit from the cops, so I shall say no more.
The suggestion I read it was potentially related to the fact he was an Ahmadiyya. I am sure the charming head of the Glasgow Central Mosque would consider him a good Muslim...or perhaps not.
"We asked Mitterrand not to give assistance to the Argentinians. If you're asking me: 'Are the French duplicitous people?' the answer is: 'Of course they are, and they always have been.'"
I agree with Nick on the need for positive messages from both.
Lance Forman was on BBC News and put forward the view that the positive side for out is that if we want the 21st century to be Britain's then we need to be nibble and be out.
Regarding Nick's "This means giving Alan Johnson a prominent role. He’s making plenty of speeches but they aren’t being reported." problem is that Alan is very short of the understanding of what the positives of the EU are beyond the few bullet points he is given by the PR. When challenged Alan does not have the depth of knowledge to defend each facile argument he makes be it on the "3 million" or the "security" or "immigration". But as I do want LEAVE I would welcome Alan to be made the leading man.... PS Has Alan actually made positive points for REMAIN?
Yes - see e,g, the speech I linked to ("click on "speeches" in the header).
Blackburn is of course right that having argued for a positive campaign I added what I thought was an effective negative message, if we were going to do that. We professionals try to swing both ways . I'm not saying there should be no negative messages - only that there should be some of each.
There are some odd claims in the speech from Alan Johnson. For example "because the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its successors help protect the islanders from Argentinian aggression." How exactly did the Treaty of Rome protect the Falklands from invasion in 1982? I always understood that we had to send a British only Task Force to evict the Argentine invasion. But maybe Mr Johnson knows differently? I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands.
My understanding is that Mitterrand immediately stood behind the UK, unlike the USA.
I think he sold the Argies the Exocets and then, as soon as he'd received payment, gave the guidance codes to the Brits (basically making the missiles useless)...
No. That is kind of unfair both ways, My understanding is that the exocets had already been dispatched (or even received) so that was out of Mitterand's control. As soon as the request came through he prevented any further sales.
The guidance codes made no difference. Hence the reason the Argentines managed to hit 3 ships, sinking two of them.
A kind Muslim man expresses his love for his British Christian country, and for Jesus, and wishes everyone to come together in peace, and then says aHappy Easter
So he is brutally sliced to death by another Muslim.
I find it impossible to express my feelings about Islam, right now, without risking OGH getting a visit from the cops, so I shall say no more.
The suggestion I read it was potentially related to the fact he was an Ahmadiyya Muslim.
Yes, apparently some hardline Salafists don't see them as proper Muslims so it's alright to kill him then blah blah blah WHO FUCKING CARES WHAT THESE DISGUSTING BEARDED PSYCHOS THINK
It's like a Nazi decapitating a Jew in Golders Green. The fact Mein Kampf might have told him to do it is not entirely relevant.
We have imported a violent and revolting mental illness, disguised as a "religion".
I have a good friend who is an Ahmadiyya Muslim and he does a lot of inter faith stuff, and he has explained to me in the past about how he is perceived by certain Muslim groups in the country of his birth. It was rather eye opening to say the least.
I agree with Nick on the need for positive messages from both.
Lance Forman was on BBC News and put forward the view that the positive side for out is that if we want the 21st century to be Britain's then we need to be nibble and be out.
Regarding Nick's "This means giving Alan Johnson a prominent role. He’s making plenty of speeches but they aren’t being reported." problem is that Alan is very short of the understanding of what the positives of the EU are beyond the few bullet points he is given by the PR. When challenged Alan does not have the depth of knowledge to defend each facile argument he makes be it on the "3 million" or the "security" or "immigration". But as I do want LEAVE I would welcome Alan to be made the leading man.... PS Has Alan actually made positive points for REMAIN?
Yes - see e,g, the speech I linked to ("click on "speeches" in the header).
Blackburn is of course right that having argued for a positive campaign I added what I thought was an effective negative message, if we were going to do that. We professionals try to swing both ways . I'm not saying there should be no negative messages - only that there should be some of each.
There are some odd claims in the speech from Alan Johnson. For example "because the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its successors help protect the islanders from Argentinian aggression." How exactly did the Treaty of Rome protect the Falklands from invasion in 1982? I always understood that we had to send a British only Task Force to evict the Argentine invasion. But maybe Mr Johnson knows differently? I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands.
My understanding is that Mitterrand immediately stood behind the UK, unlike the USA.
I think he sold the Argies the Exocets and then, as soon as he'd received payment, gave the guidance codes to the Brits (basically making the missiles useless)...
Yes, I also heard that. Also I heard there might have been some useful strategic (satellite or otherwise electronic?) information from the US.
A kind Muslim man expresses his love for his British Christian country, and for Jesus, and wishes everyone to come together in peace, and then says aHappy Easter
So he is brutally sliced to death by another Muslim.
I find it impossible to express my feelings about Islam, right now, without risking OGH getting a visit from the cops, so I shall say no more.
A halt to immigration from the Muslim world, an end to Muslim state secondary schools, prohibition of the hijab in state insititutions and an outright ban on the burka.
Ataturk would agree with this. Why can't we do it?
Was it ever revealed what the motive behind the Mosque reader who got killed? Initially there was coded language of a racist attack, but then they arrested a Muslim.
I agree with Nick on the need for positive messages from both.
Regarding Nick's "This means giving Alan Johnson a prominent role. He’s making plenty of speeches but they aren’t being reported." problem is that Alan is very short of the understanding of what the positives of the EU are beyond the few bullet points he is given by the PR. When challenged Alan does not have the depth of knowledge to defend each facile argument he makes be it on the "3 million" or the "security" or "immigration". But as I do want LEAVE I would welcome Alan to be made the leading man.... PS Has Alan actually made positive points for REMAIN?
There are some odd claims in the speech from Alan Johnson. For example "because the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its successors help protect the islanders from Argentinian aggression." How exactly did the Treaty of Rome protect the Falklands from invasion in 1982? I always understood that we had to send a British only Task Force to evict the Argentine invasion. But maybe Mr Johnson knows differently? I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands.
My understanding is that Mitterrand immediately stood behind the UK, unlike the USA.
I think he sold the Argies the Exocets and then, as soon as he'd received payment, gave the guidance codes to the Brits (basically making the missiles useless)...
They obviously weren't that useless.
Sean T.
Its a religion that for far too many of its adherents currently perpetuates whinging victimhood and as a result justification for violence against innocents.
Any political, social or religious case that perpetuates such a victimhood is dangerous. In this country, right now far too many Muslims believe there is some kind of cause and wrap it in victimhood. There isn't such a cause.
This is ably supported by far too many of this country's political class who think that just because they know some Islington lawyer who happens to be Muslim that qualifies them to urge everyone to be tolerant.
Tolerance for the language that excuses Islamist violence, that talks about economic factors like they are a contributing factor is just balls. Give them no excuse, no if or buts. This country does not have a suppressive environment for the Muslim population, they are not persecuted as a populous by the state or others.
This guy charged in Belgium, Faycal C, by the way is a journalist..of a kind.
This guy charged in Belgium, Faycal C by the way is a journalist..of a kind.
I saw the picture of him with a mic and I did wonder. Oh FFS...
Faisal C. is in the crosshairs of the Brussels police for months, report several Belgian media. According to the site Rtl.be , he was reported to police by humanitarian associations in September. He allegedly tried to recruit migrants Maximilian Park to join jihadist networks. According to "Le Soir" , the mayor of the city Yvan Mayeur, denounced on many occasions his "activism" to the prosecutor and Justice. Recital as "dangerous", he even arrested several times administratively.
As a sweeping generalisation Arab armies have terrible command and control problems. In the modern Iraq army for instance officers never meet their troops and troops don't get trained on the specialist weaponary they are given.
I disagree, No won in Scotland by relentlessly plugging fear and the risks of breakaway and economic dangers, Remain needs to do the same. In referendums passion and positivity rarely are decisive what is decisive is people looking at the risks involved and the threat to their bank balance
But the Yes vote kept increasing over the campaign period. The fear approach slowed down Yes's momentum, it didn't make people vote No.
In general yes voters made up their mind far later than no voters so undecided people listenened to months of project fear then decided on yes.
Maybe false memory, but wasn't it in the aftermath of the second TV debate that Yes surged? A very partisan audience unsettled Darling, who failed to pick up on a series of Salmond fibs about the currency issue.
There was definitely a polling surge post second debate when Darling got destroyed. It wasn't the audience that unsettled him, it was turning up thinking the wank, awfully prepared Salmond of the first debate was going to turn up again.
He didn't. Quippy, but quick on his feet Salmond turned up and in a total mirror of the first debate Darlings opening salvo on currency turned into a buttock clenchingly pitiful bout of soundbite repitition by Darling as opposed to the smarmy rabbit in headlights performance by Salmond in the first debate.
Darling never regained his footing and found himself having to defend Tory policy in Scotland and his personal record later in the debate.
O/T Why would you allow the actions of some vile thugs colour a whole religion?
My mum's funeral the other week was conducted by a non denominational black, African minister, and involved a heart rendering sermon and Islamic prayers from a senior Muslim leader. The Muslim community have been nothing but kind and compassionate to my mum.
We can all judge people by their best or worst characteristics. The same for religion. Do you want to judge Christianity by those barking mad African pastors that go exorcising children, or paedophile priests or by the example set by the Pope.
My personal experience and contact with Muslims has been overwhelmingly positive. I'd rather use that as a barometer than some random, isolated, horrific stories about people I know nothing about. If I chose the latter as my reference point I would end up hating and loathing everyone.
A kind Muslim man expresses his love for his British Christian country, and for Jesus, and wishes everyone to come together in peace, and then says aHappy Easter
So he is brutally sliced to death by another Muslim.
A kind Muslim man expresses his love for his British Christian country, and for Jesus, and wishes everyone to come together in peace, and then says aHappy Easter
So he is brutally sliced to death by another Muslim.
Useless enough to kill what was it, about 60 British sailors?
Which means it worked well enough to hit and result in the elimination of a Royal Navy fighting vessel and one support vessel whilst damaging another fighting vessel.
Bearing in mind it was actually fired by the Argentinian Navy a handful of times, thats not a bad strike rate.
I agree with Nick on the need for positive messages from both.
Regarding Nick's "This means giving Alan Johnson a prominent role. He’s making plenty of speeches but they aren’t being reported." problem is that Alan is very short of the understanding of what the positives of the EU are beyond the few bullet points he is given by the PR. When challenged Alan does not have the depth of knowledge to defend each facile argument he makes be it on the "3 million" or the "security" or "immigration". But as I do want LEAVE I would welcome Alan to be made the leading man.... PS Has Alan actually made positive points for REMAIN?
There are some odd claims in the speech from Alan Johnson. For example "because the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its successors help protect the islanders from Argentinian aggression." How exactly did the Treaty of Rome protect the Falklands from invasion in 1982? I always understood that we had to send a British only Task Force to evict the Argentine invasion. But maybe Mr Johnson knows differently? I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands.
My understanding is that Mitterrand immediately stood behind the UK, unlike the USA.
I think he sold the Argies the Exocets and then, as soon as he'd received payment, gave the guidance codes to the Brits (basically making the missiles useless)...
They obviously weren't that useless.
Sean T.
Its a religion that for far too many of its adherents currently perpetuates whinging victimhood and as a result justification for violence against innocents.
Any political, social or religious case that perpetuates such a victimhood is dangerous. In this country, right now far too many Muslims believe there is some kind of cause and wrap it in victimhood. There isn't such a cause.
This is ably supported by far too many of this country's political class who think that just because they know some Islington lawyer who happens to be Muslim that qualifies them to urge everyone to be tolerant.
Tolerance for the language that excuses Islamist violence, that talks about economic factors like they are a contributing factor is just balls. Give them no excuse, no if or buts. This country does not have a suppressive environment for the Muslim population, they are not persecuted as a populous by the state or others.
This guy charged in Belgium, Faycal C, by the way is a journalist..of a kind.
A kind Muslim man expresses his love for his British Christian country, and for Jesus, and wishes everyone to come together in peace, and then says aHappy Easter
So he is brutally sliced to death by another Muslim.
I find it impossible to express my feelings about Islam, right now, without risking OGH getting a visit from the cops, so I shall say no more.
A halt to immigration from the Muslim world, an end to Muslim state secondary schools, prohibition of the hijab in state insititutions and an outright ban on the burka.
Ataturk would agree with this. Why can't we do it?
I agree with Nick on the need for positive messages from both.
There are some odd claims in the speech from Alan Johnson. For example "because the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its successors help protect the islanders from Argentinian aggression." How exactly did the Treaty of Rome protect the Falklands from invasion in 1982? I always understood that we had to send a British only Task Force to evict the Argentine invasion. But maybe Mr Johnson knows differently? I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands.
My understanding is that Mitterrand immediately stood behind the UK, unlike the USA.
I think he sold the Argies the Exocets and then, as soon as he'd received payment, gave the guidance codes to the Brits (basically making the missiles useless)...
They obviously weren't that useless.
Sean T.
Its a religion that for far too many of its adherents currently perpetuates whinging victimhood and as a result justification for violence against innocents.
Any political, social or religious case that perpetuates such a victimhood is dangerous. In this country, right now far too many Muslims believe there is some kind of cause and wrap it in victimhood. There isn't such a cause.
This is ably supported by far too many of this country's political class who think that just because they know some Islington lawyer who happens to be Muslim that qualifies them to urge everyone to be tolerant.
Tolerance for the language that excuses Islamist violence, that talks about economic factors like they are a contributing factor is just balls. Give them no excuse, no if or buts. This country does not have a suppressive environment for the Muslim population, they are not persecuted as a populous by the state or others.
This guy charged in Belgium, Faycal C, by the way is a journalist..of a kind.
I suspect I've met many more than you have, both in the UK and in the Middle East. Ive worked with them on a number of occasions.
Having said that, in 1939, if I was around, I'd probably not have known too many Germans but I would have known that Nazism was a dogshit pesudo-religious philosophy that represented a danger.
Did the police arrest this wanker imam? No. Yet they arrested that idiot for his "mealy mouthed" tweet about confronting a Muslim woman over Brussels.
This is the problem. The longer we tolerate their intolerance, the worse their violence will get. It's the Asian grooming problem, turned into sectarian hatred.
Wasn't the problem that they couldn't find a crime he might have committed? Maybe praising killers in private conversations should be a crime, but it's not and it is odd to hear the Free Speech for Bigots brigade saying that a bigot should be denied his free speech
A kind Muslim man expresses his love for his British Christian country, and for Jesus, and wishes everyone to come together in peace, and then says aHappy Easter
So he is brutally sliced to death by another Muslim.
I find it impossible to express my feelings about Islam, right now, without risking OGH getting a visit from the cops, so I shall say no more.
A halt to immigration from the Muslim world, an end to Muslim state secondary schools, prohibition of the hijab in state insititutions and an outright ban on the burka.
Ataturk would agree with this. Why can't we do it?
A kind Muslim man expresses his love for his British Christian country, and for Jesus, and wishes everyone to come together in peace, and then says aHappy Easter
So he is brutally sliced to death by another Muslim.
I find it impossible to express my feelings about Islam, right now, without risking OGH getting a visit from the cops, so I shall say no more.
A halt to immigration from the Muslim world, an end to Muslim state secondary schools, prohibition of the hijab in state insititutions and an outright ban on the burka.
Ataturk would agree with this. Why can't we do it?
A kind Muslim man expresses his love for his British Christian country, and for Jesus, and wishes everyone to come together in peace, and then says aHappy Easter
So he is brutally sliced to death by another Muslim.
I find it impossible to express my feelings about Islam, right now, without risking OGH getting a visit from the cops, so I shall say no more.
A halt to immigration from the Muslim world, an end to Muslim state secondary schools, prohibition of the hijab in state insititutions and an outright ban on the burka.
Ataturk would agree with this. Why can't we do it?
A kind Muslim man expresses his love for his British Christian country, and for Jesus, and wishes everyone to come together in peace, and then says aHappy Easter
So he is brutally sliced to death by another Muslim.
I find it impossible to express my feelings about Islam, right now, without risking OGH getting a visit from the cops, so I shall say no more.
A halt to immigration from the Muslim world, an end to Muslim state secondary schools, prohibition of the hijab in state insititutions and an outright ban on the burka.
Ataturk would agree with this. Why can't we do it?
@SkyBet: CALIFORNIA CHROME wins the Dubai World Cup!
If there were any bookies here they would be quite upset at that result - the horse everyone was talking about all week. The owner will be happy though, $10m prize to the winner!
A kind Muslim man expresses his love for his British Christian country, and for Jesus, and wishes everyone to come together in peace, and then says aHappy Easter
So he is brutally sliced to death by another Muslim.
I find it impossible to express my feelings about Islam, right now, without risking OGH getting a visit from the cops, so I shall say no more.
A halt to immigration from the Muslim world, an end to Muslim state secondary schools, prohibition of the hijab in state insititutions and an outright ban on the burka.
Ataturk would agree with this. Why can't we do it?
Why should Anglican, Catholic, Jewish, Hindu and Sikh schools be abolished? What have they done wrong?
Because some people are afraid to say what they really think At least SeanT will tell you that Muslims as an undifferentiated blob of people are the problem
I agree with Nick on the need for positive messages from both.
There are some odd claims in the speech from Alan Johnson. For example "because the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its successors help protect the islanders from Argentinian aggression." How exactly did the Treaty of Rome protect the Falklands from invasion in 1982? I always understood that we had to send a British only Task Force to evict the Argentine invasion. But maybe Mr Johnson knows differently? I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands.
My understanding is that Mitterrand immediately stood behind the UK, unlike the USA.
I think he sold the Argies the Exocets and then, as soon as he'd received payment, gave the guidance codes to the Brits (basically making the missiles useless)...
They obviously weren't that useless.
I suspect I've met many more than you have, both in the UK and in the Middle East. Ive worked with them on a number of occasions.
Having said that, in 1939, if I was around, I'd probably not have known too many Germans but I would have known that Nazism was a dogshit pesudo-religious philosophy that represented a danger.
A kind Muslim man expresses his love for his British Christian country, and for Jesus, and wishes everyone to come together in peace, and then says aHappy Easter
So he is brutally sliced to death by another Muslim.
I find it impossible to express my feelings about Islam, right now, without risking OGH getting a visit from the cops, so I shall say no more.
A halt to immigration from the Muslim world, an end to Muslim state secondary schools, prohibition of the hijab in state insititutions and an outright ban on the burka.
Ataturk would agree with this. Why can't we do it?
That article contains a quote from professional propagandist and rentagob Keith Porteous Wood, who is not a secularist or a humanist but a straightforward anticlericalist along the lines of a Robespierre. He is also dishonest, self-righteous, arrogant and rude. That in itself should alert you to the fact the article cannot be taken seriously.
I know of only a handful of schools that 'promote evangelisation' (the way he says it, you would think the whole point of RS is proselytisation, which it certainly isn't but given his profound ignorance of all subjects to do with religion, is probably something he doesn't realise) and ironically all of them are officially fully secular schools under LEA control.
France has a whole different ethos, one that has actually been remarkably unsuccessful at dealing with religious tension or even keeping religion in the private sphere. As a result - helped somewhat by the fact that the government pays for the upkeep of all religious buildings erected before 1905 - all major religions in France are happy to let the government dance about making grand gestures like this one that are meaningless in practice. When you do get far-right activists trying to force Muslims to eat pork - which has happened - the Human Rights Laws deal with it instead.
Moreover, I see no mention in that article of how we would afford the closure/takeover of all religious schools.
Finally, the French education system is designed to prioritise rote learning and it has no effective pastoral system, unlike his country. That's something the churches tend to provide instead and therefore limits the effects of a theoretically fully secular education system.
PS- it's also one reason why the French system is not very good.
A kind Muslim man expresses his love for his British Christian country, and for Jesus, and wishes everyone to come together in peace, and then says aHappy Easter
So he is brutally sliced to death by another Muslim.
I find it impossible to express my feelings about Islam, right now, without risking OGH getting a visit from the cops, so I shall say no more.
A halt to immigration from the Muslim world, an end to Muslim state secondary schools, prohibition of the hijab in state insititutions and an outright ban on the burka.
Ataturk would agree with this. Why can't we do it?
I do find it sad that we can concentrate on the religion of the murderer and use that to condemn yet ignore the religion of the victim so we don't have to use that to celebrate.
This was a muslim who, for all we know, was just as devout as any other of his faith but who was murdered by a nutter because he held out the hand of friendship to others.
Personally I find all religions both bizarre and illogical but I don't understand how anyone can reasonably highlight the religion of the murderer but downplay the religion of the victim.
I agree with Nick on the need for positive messages from both.
There are some odd claims in the speech from Alan Johnson. For example "because the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its successors help protect the islanders from Argentinian aggression." How exactly did the Treaty of Rome protect the Falklands from invasion in 1982? I always understood that we had to send a British only Task Force to evict the Argentine invasion. But maybe Mr Johnson knows differently? I also thought that one of our Treaty of Rome signatories sold arms (Exocets) to the Argentinians that were used against us in the Falklands.
My understanding is that Mitterrand immediately stood behind the UK, unlike the USA.
I think he sold the Argies the Exocets and then, as soon as he'd received payment, gave the guidance codes to the Brits (basically making the missiles useless)...
They obviously weren't that useless.
I suspect I've met many more than you have, both in the UK and in the Middle East. Ive worked with them on a number of occasions.
Having said that, in 1939, if I was around, I'd probably not have known too many Germans but I would have known that Nazism was a dogshit pesudo-religious philosophy that represented a danger.
And you've failed to read my post. You love to see yourself as some contrarian..perhaps with a moniker named after a rapist and fruitcake...such an association is always a sign of an individuals weakness at their core....but you have nothing other than contrarian talk that will jemmy everything to fit your world view such as it is. Good luck to you, it will achieve nothing.
Moreover, I see no mention in that article of how we would afford the closure/takeover of all religious schools.
Finally, the French education system is designed to prioritise rote learning and it has no effective pastoral system, unlike his country. That's something the churches tend to provide instead and therefore limits the effects of a theoretically fully secular education system.
PS- it's also one reason why the French system is not very good.
And it doesn't matter one jot who said this (religious education is unwise), it's clearly right. If you want to hold irrational beliefs then it's up to you. We shouldn't ever teach irrationality though. That means we should never teach religion. However 'religious studies' is another thing entirely - a course briefing the unwary as to how stupid people can be seems eminently sensible.
Religious studies should perhaps also focus on the incredible success that religion has had in keeping people in order. We wouldn't want the masses to do something rash like think would we!
edit:i had to cut a lot of stuff to get this to post - refer back
'there were sections of French establishment who were helping the Argentines.'
Indeed, and equally there were sections of the US establishment that were very unhelpful. So the moral of the story is we need to be prepared to defend our own interests where necessary.
It's the fact that we did just that, and successfully, that still irks people on the left of British politics (including Europhile 'Tories') today.
But it was what made the Falklands action so popular at the time.
Care to name all these Europhile Tories or are you just talking shit?
Moreover, I see no mention in that article of how we would afford the closure/takeover of all religious schools.
Finally, the French education system is designed to prioritise rote learning and it has no effective pastoral system, unlike his country. That's something the churches tend to provide instead and therefore limits the effects of a theoretically fully secular education system.
PS- it's also one reason why the French system is not very good.
And it doesn't matter one jot who said this (religious education is unwise), it's clearly right. If you want to hold irrational beliefs then it's up to you. We shouldn't ever teach irrationality though. That means we should never teach religion. However 'religious studies' is another thing entirely - a course briefing the unwary as to how stupid people can be seems eminently sensible.
Religious studies should perhaps also focus on the incredible success that religion has had in keeping people in order. We wouldn't want the masses to do something rash like think would we!
edit:i had to cut a lot of stuff to get this to post - refer back
RE in his first couple of years at secondary (Grammar) school has persuaded my grandson to atheism.
Omnium, most denominational schools teach things like English, Maths, French, etc. With considerable success, judging by their results.
Bromptonaut, good luck with trying to ban parents from passing on their beliefs, religious, political, or ethical, to their children.
I really do think that calls to ban denominational schools are pretty totalitarian. Almost as if children are seen as the wards of the State.
I don't doubt for one moment the high quality of the education that many religious schools give. They'd be better off, in my view, if nonsense wasn't an additional element on the curriculum though.
I don't like a ban either - you could opt in to nonsense lessons if you chose.
Moreover, I see no mention in that article of how we would afford the closure/takeover of all religious schools.
Finally, the French education system is designed to prioritise rote learning and it has no effective pastoral system, unlike his country. That's something the churches tend to provide instead and therefore limits the effects of a theoretically fully secular education system.
PS- it's also one reason why the French system is not very good.
And it doesn't matter one jot who said this (religious education is unwise), it's clearly right. If you want to hold irrational beliefs then it's up to you. We shouldn't ever teach irrationality though. That means we should never teach religion. However 'religious studies' is another thing entirely - a course briefing the unwary as to how stupid people can be seems eminently sensible.
Religious studies should perhaps also focus on the incredible success that religion has had in keeping people in order. We wouldn't want the masses to do something rash like think would we!
edit:i had to cut a lot of stuff to get this to post - refer back
The point Omnium is that you are yourself proving your own point wrong. Religious studies, ever since it ceased to be divinity in about 1950, had been about what religions believe. It is, as a diehard atheist lecturer of mine once commented, a valuable subject for that reason.
Wood wants it to be banned from schools. This is based on a burning, visceral hatred of religion and apparently a complete lack of knowledge of what it consists of. He is, in fact, along with Richard Dawkins and Richard Carrier, one of the more irrational fundamentalists I know of, frantically trying to fit facts to his arguments (as in the case of education). The fact that their fundamentalism is atheist in nature is irrelevant - it merely makes them more arrogant.
The reason I compared him to Robespierre is that his attitude is almost identical to that of the politicians of the Third Republic, admirers of the Revolution, who came up with the original dog's breakfast that is French educational and clerical policy.
If there were any bookies here they would be quite upset at that result - the horse everyone was talking about all week. The owner will be happy though, $10m prize to the winner!
Didn't start favourite on the exchanges, and the saddle slipped badly during the race, but a handy 7/4 return
Omnium, most denominational schools teach things like English, Maths, French, etc. With considerable success, judging by their results.
Bromptonaut, good luck with trying to ban parents from passing on their beliefs, religious, political, or ethical, to their children.
I really do think that calls to ban denominational schools are pretty totalitarian. Almost as if children are seen as the wards of the State.
I don't doubt for one moment the high quality of the education that many religious schools give. They'd be better off, in my view, if nonsense wasn't an additional element on the curriculum though.
I don't like a ban either - you could opt in to nonsense lessons if you chose.
Omnium, have you ever actually studied religion in any depth? I'm thinking of the likes of Daoism and Confucianism here, as well as arguably Communism (Communists also tend to be very ignorant of what 'religions' are, in my experience, which is why so many of them are cross when you point out that it is to all intents and purposes a religion).
@OldKingCole, I once taught RE to a group of diehard teenage atheists. Their last teacher but two had turned them right off the subject because she was an evangelical Christian and could never critique Christianity effectively while never having a good word to say about other religions. The loveliest moment I ever had in teaching was discovering that it had gone from being their most hated subject to one of their best liked.
A kind Muslim man expresses his love for his British Christian country, and for Jesus, and wishes everyone to come together in peace, and then says aHappy Easter
So he is brutally sliced to death by another Muslim.
Moreover, I see no mention in that article of how we would afford the closure/takeover of all religious schools.
Finally, the French education system is designed to prioritise rote learning and it has no effective pastoral system, unlike his country. That's something the churches tend to provide instead and therefore limits the effects of a theoretically fully secular education system.
PS- it's also one reason why the French system is not very good.
And it doesn't matter one jot who said this (religious education is unwise), it's clearly right. If you want to hold irrational beliefs then it's up to you. We shouldn't ever teach irrationality though. That means we should never teach religion. However 'religious studies' is another thing entirely - a course briefing the unwary as to how stupid people can be seems eminently sensible.
Religious studies should perhaps also focus on the incredible success that religion has had in keeping people in order. We wouldn't want the masses to do something rash like think would we!
edit:i had to cut a lot of stuff to get this to post - refer back
The point Omnium is that you are yourself proving your own point wrong. Religious studies, ever since it ceased to be divinity in about 1950, had been about what religions believe. It is, as a diehard atheist lecturer of mine once commented, a valuable subject for that reason.
Wood wants it to be banned from schools. This is based on a burning, visceral hatred of religion and apparently a complete lack of knowledge of what it consists of. He is, in fact, along with Richard Dawkins and Richard Carrier, one of the more irrational fundamentalists I know of, frantically trying to fit facts to his arguments (as in the case of education). The fact that their fundamentalism is atheist in nature is irrelevant - it merely makes them more arrogant.
The reason I compared him to Robespierre is that his attitude is almost identical to that of the politicians of the Third Republic, admirers of the Revolution, who came up with the original dog's breakfast that is French educational and clerical policy.
i don't quite see how I'm proving myself wrong. I've also responded to to Sean_F that I see some benefit in understanding the views of others.
Atheism can be as fundamentalist as any old religion. If that's what you meant then you're entirely right. I think though that there's a 'careful atheist' position that should be the default.
So..
Was there a creator? We don't know Are there beings that are beyond us? Almost certainly 'yes'.
(Chinese delivery arrived, so fill the rest in for yourselves)
Moreover, I see no mention in that article of how we would afford the closure/takeover of all religious schools.
Finally, the French education system is designed to prioritise rote learning and it has no effective pastoral system, unlike his country. That's something the churches tend to provide instead and therefore limits the effects of a theoretically fully secular education system.
PS- it's also one reason why the French system is not very good.
And it doesn't matter one jot who said this (religious education is unwise), it's clearly right. If you want to hold irrational beliefs then it's up to you. We shouldn't ever teach irrationality though. That means we should never teach religion. However 'religious studies' is another thing entirely - a course briefing the unwary as to how stupid people can be seems eminently sensible.
Religious studies should perhaps also focus on the incredible success that religion has had in keeping people in order. We wouldn't want the masses to do something rash like think would we!
edit:i had to cut a lot of stuff to get this to post - refer back
The point Omnium is that you are yourself proving your own point wrong. Religious studies, ever since it ceased to be divinity in about 1950, had been about what religions believe. It is, as a diehard atheist lecturer of mine once commented, a valuable subject for that reason.
Wood wants it to be banned from schools. This is based on a burning, visceral hatred of religion and apparently a complete lack of knowledge of what it consists of. He is, in fact, along with Richard Dawkins and Richard Carrier, one of the more irrational fundamentalists I know of, frantically trying to fit facts to his arguments (as in the case of education). The fact that their fundamentalism is atheist in nature is irrelevant - it merely makes them more arrogant.
The reason I compared him to Robespierre is that his attitude is almost identical to that of the politicians of the Third Republic, admirers of the Revolution, who came up with the original dog's breakfast that is French educational and clerical policy.
i don't quite see how I'm proving myself wrong. I've also responded to to Sean_F that I see some benefit in understanding the views of others.
Atheism can be as fundamentalist as any old religion. If that's what you meant then you're entirely right. I think though that there's a 'careful atheist' position that should be the default.
So..
Was there a creator? We don't know Are there beings that are beyond us? Almost certainly 'yes'.
(Chinese delivery arrived, so fill the rest in for yourselves)
But that's agnosticism. Not atheism. For the rest, I am happy to accept your position as stated.
Comments
Edit: Not really asking you specifically ... is *anyone* claiming that?
If the evidence supports it. Past actions and past threats are part of the argument. Witness the "if we do not join the euro" line from many in the REMAIN camp.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17256975
That is not to say that the official French position was not to help the UK but according to that article there were sections of French establishment who were helping the Argentines.
Are you all Spurs fans or something ?
Underarmers now :-)
In general yes voters made up their mind far later than no voters so undecided people listenened to months of project fear then decided on yes.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/26/iraqi-soldiers-flee-again-in-iraq-army-s-first-mosul-operation.html?via=mobile&source=twitter
"While the Peshmerga only have two brigades equipped with U.S. weapons, the Iraqi Army is fully equipped with weapons, armored vehicles, and artillery. Many of the Kurdish Peshmerga have only their self-armored trucks and their old Kalashnikovs. And, still, they advance more quickly than Iraqi government forces. "
Indeed, and equally there were sections of the US establishment that were very unhelpful. So the moral of the story is we need to be prepared to defend our own interests where necessary.
It's the fact that we did just that, and successfully, that still irks people on the left of British politics (including Europhile 'Tories') today.
But it was what made the Falklands action so popular at the time.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/sep/06/falklands.world
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhCjGcCMOxU
Then, in May 2015, when Mexican forces tried to push into CJNG territory, the crime group responded by mounting a vicious counterstrike: burning gas stations, blocking roads with flaming semi-trucks, and using an RPG to blow a twin-engine Cougar attack chopper out of the sky, killing eight soldiers and a member of the federal police.
“The cartel uses such displays in order to shock the authorities,” says criminologist Benitez, when asked about El Mencho’s strong-arm tactics. “It’s a way of warning government to back off, and to show them who’s the boss.”
As for high-powered weapons like the shoulder-fired rocket launcher used by cartel gunmen to take down the chopper, Benitez says it was “probably bought on the black market in the U.S.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/26/fighting-mexico-s-new-super-cartel.html
Oh:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35893123
"We asked Mitterrand not to give assistance to the Argentinians. If you're asking me: 'Are the French duplicitous people?' the answer is: 'Of course they are, and they always have been.'"
The guidance codes made no difference. Hence the reason the Argentines managed to hit 3 ships, sinking two of them.
Also I heard there might have been some useful strategic (satellite or otherwise electronic?) information from the US.
Ataturk would agree with this. Why can't we do it?
Sean T.
Its a religion that for far too many of its adherents currently perpetuates whinging victimhood and as a result justification for violence against innocents.
Any political, social or religious case that perpetuates such a victimhood is dangerous. In this country, right now far too many Muslims believe there is some kind of cause and wrap it in victimhood. There isn't such a cause.
This is ably supported by far too many of this country's political class who think that just because they know some Islington lawyer who happens to be Muslim that qualifies them to urge everyone to be tolerant.
Tolerance for the language that excuses Islamist violence, that talks about economic factors like they are a contributing factor is just balls. Give them no excuse, no if or buts. This country does not have a suppressive environment for the Muslim population, they are not persecuted as a populous by the state or others.
This guy charged in Belgium, Faycal C, by the way is a journalist..of a kind.
Faisal C. is in the crosshairs of the Brussels police for months, report several Belgian media. According to the site Rtl.be , he was reported to police by humanitarian associations in September. He allegedly tried to recruit migrants Maximilian Park to join jihadist networks. According to "Le Soir" , the mayor of the city Yvan Mayeur, denounced on many occasions his "activism" to the prosecutor and Justice. Recital as "dangerous", he even arrested several times administratively.
http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/societe/attentats-terroristes-bruxelles/20160326.OBS7216/attentats-de-bruxelles-ce-que-l-on-sait-sur-faycal-c.html
He didn't. Quippy, but quick on his feet Salmond turned up and in a total mirror of the first debate Darlings opening salvo on currency turned into a buttock clenchingly pitiful bout of soundbite repitition by Darling as opposed to the smarmy rabbit in headlights performance by Salmond in the first debate.
Darling never regained his footing and found himself having to defend Tory policy in Scotland and his personal record later in the debate.
Useless enough to kill what was it, about 60 British sailors?
Why would you allow the actions of some vile thugs colour a whole religion?
My mum's funeral the other week was conducted by a non denominational black, African minister, and involved a heart rendering sermon and Islamic prayers from a senior Muslim leader. The Muslim community have been nothing but kind and compassionate to my mum.
We can all judge people by their best or worst characteristics. The same for religion. Do you want to judge Christianity by those barking mad African pastors that go exorcising children, or paedophile priests or by the example set by the Pope.
My personal experience and contact with Muslims has been overwhelmingly positive. I'd rather use that as a barometer than some random, isolated, horrific stories about people I know nothing about. If I chose the latter as my reference point I would end up hating and loathing everyone.
Appalling.
Bearing in mind it was actually fired by the Argentinian Navy a handful of times, thats not a bad strike rate.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/2013/09/religion-and-education-england-and-france
Having said that, in 1939, if I was around, I'd probably not have known too many Germans but I would have known that Nazism was a dogshit pesudo-religious philosophy that represented a danger.
Maybe praising killers in private conversations should be a crime, but it's not and it is odd to hear the Free Speech for Bigots brigade saying that a bigot should be denied his free speech
At least SeanT will tell you that Muslims as an undifferentiated blob of people are the problem
And quite frankly to equate Islam to Nazism says much more about you and how your narrow, xenophobic, blinkered, intellectually skewed brain works.
I know of only a handful of schools that 'promote evangelisation' (the way he says it, you would think the whole point of RS is proselytisation, which it certainly isn't but given his profound ignorance of all subjects to do with religion, is probably something he doesn't realise) and ironically all of them are officially fully secular schools under LEA control.
France has a whole different ethos, one that has actually been remarkably unsuccessful at dealing with religious tension or even keeping religion in the private sphere. As a result - helped somewhat by the fact that the government pays for the upkeep of all religious buildings erected before 1905 - all major religions in France are happy to let the government dance about making grand gestures like this one that are meaningless in practice. When you do get far-right activists trying to force Muslims to eat pork - which has happened - the Human Rights Laws deal with it instead.
Moreover, I see no mention in that article of how we would afford the closure/takeover of all religious schools.
Finally, the French education system is designed to prioritise rote learning and it has no effective pastoral system, unlike his country. That's something the churches tend to provide instead and therefore limits the effects of a theoretically fully secular education system.
PS- it's also one reason why the French system is not very good.
This was a muslim who, for all we know, was just as devout as any other of his faith but who was murdered by a nutter because he held out the hand of friendship to others.
Personally I find all religions both bizarre and illogical but I don't understand how anyone can reasonably highlight the religion of the murderer but downplay the religion of the victim.
On the other hand, the Muslims won us the match against the Saffers.
Neuer - Can, Rüdiger, Hummels, Hector - Kroos, Khedira - Müller, Özil, Reus - Gomez
Religious studies should perhaps also focus on the incredible success that religion has had in keeping people in order. We wouldn't want the masses to do something rash like think would we!
edit:i had to cut a lot of stuff to get this to post - refer back
Should be great to watch the Chris Gayle highlights. Will he get a date though
Bromptonaut, good luck with trying to ban parents from passing on their beliefs, religious, political, or ethical, to their children.
I really do think that calls to ban denominational schools are pretty totalitarian. Almost as if children are seen as the wards of the State.
Indeed.
I don't doubt for one moment the high quality of the education that many religious schools give. They'd be better off, in my view, if nonsense wasn't an additional element on the curriculum though.
I don't like a ban either - you could opt in to nonsense lessons if you chose.
Wood wants it to be banned from schools. This is based on a burning, visceral hatred of religion and apparently a complete lack of knowledge of what it consists of. He is, in fact, along with Richard Dawkins and Richard Carrier, one of the more irrational fundamentalists I know of, frantically trying to fit facts to his arguments (as in the case of education). The fact that their fundamentalism is atheist in nature is irrelevant - it merely makes them more arrogant.
The reason I compared him to Robespierre is that his attitude is almost identical to that of the politicians of the Third Republic, admirers of the Revolution, who came up with the original dog's breakfast that is French educational and clerical policy.
I'd be happier as a Leicester fan right now !
@OldKingCole, I once taught RE to a group of diehard teenage atheists. Their last teacher but two had turned them right off the subject because she was an evangelical Christian and could never critique Christianity effectively while never having a good word to say about other religions. The loveliest moment I ever had in teaching was discovering that it had gone from being their most hated subject to one of their best liked.
@RedHotSquirrel Hi Robert look at this! https://t.co/YQZsfuS4xB Yes its the BOMB MAKER!
Merkel and the terrorist selfie
So incredibly sad.
With regards to Nicky Morgan, at least she had the balls to enter the Lion's den. The result was entirely predictable.
http://www.dw.com/en/refugee-saddened-by-comparison-with-brussels-bomber/a-19143918
He does have a lovely new iPhone though.
Atheism can be as fundamentalist as any old religion. If that's what you meant then you're entirely right. I think though that there's a 'careful atheist' position that should be the default.
So..
Was there a creator? We don't know
Are there beings that are beyond us? Almost certainly 'yes'.
(Chinese delivery arrived, so fill the rest in for yourselves)
I hope you enjoy the Chinese.
Is he expected to significantly overperform in the primaries today?