@heidiallen75: Strong leadership means not being afraid to tell someone powerful when they're wrong. It's an ethos this country is proud of @theresa_may
If only someone had predicted, with devastating accuracy, what might happen...
But your hero Enoch was talking about black people. And in that respect he was completely and totally wrong.
anger was mixed marriages, but the people he talked about wont allow that
I guess some black people or "negros" are from the Commonwealth.......
I think ll "negros" in Wolverhampton would have been West Indian. When I lived there (in his old constituency) the only non-English speakers were Punjabi Sikhs.
I happen to think that Black people have assimilated pretty well in England, the number of people of mixed heritage is evidence of that. But if we were going to be picky, Lee Rigby's murderers...
Thats the thing. 10 or twenty years ago people were not saying black have assimilated. The opposite infact.
Well we don't have to wonder, it is not subjective, we can compare the number of babies born to mixed parents of all kinds and we will have proof of who assimilates and who doesnt
At a guess, I would think White people intermarry the most, followed by Black people, followed by East Asians, followed by South Asians and Middle Easterners.
Nope. Whites (as in 'pure' whites) are the least likely to intermarry. The next most reluctant are the various peoples of the sub-continent. Chinese are positively promiscuous about inter-marriage.
Of all people in inter-ethnic relationships, 4 in 10 (40%) included someone who was White British - the most common being between Other White and White British (16%)
Further up Sunil, further up:
"• White British (4%) were least likely to be in inter-ethnic relationships, followed by Bangladeshi (7%), Pakistani (9%) and Indian (12%) ethnic groups."
Hence my 'pure'.
Is that a % of White British? In actual number they are surely the highest?
And isn't there a ceiling for white British (being the most in absolute number) that doesn't apply to any other group?
I'd argue that the US Constitution applies only to the citizens of the United States (wherever they are) and to the territory (however defined) of the United States. It does not cover treatment of non-US citizens outside US territory.
Surely it applies to those who travelled to the US to become citizens, right?
I don't think it does (correct me if I'm wrong). Green Card/Permanent Residents aren't citizens.
If memory serves John Oliver is a permanent resident and Craig Ferguson became a citizen. So if John Oliver left, Trump would be within his rights to prevent his re-entry.
There must be millions of disappointed Americans cancelling their stag do’s in Tehran…
I suspect
Which is why his attitude to Saudi will be critical.
Which he why he gave the go-ahead for two new oil pipelines last week.
One imagines the US attitude to Saudi will change overnight, the minute the US becomes properly self-sufficient in fossil fuels. It's also why the UK and other O&G importers need to get fracking yesterday.
: :
Yes - I've had conversations with progressive types who are appalled that when we stop needing oil, we will stop giving money to countries who used to have oil. Apparently we should still send the money or something.
Do you have any published source for such a ridiculous anecdote?
As I said - people I've spoken with. I think they were a bit shocked by my happiness at a future state of affairs where, instead of us giving large sums of money to countries run by demented fools, we don't. The environmental thing is a bonus.
As I understand the thinking involved - since their societies are entirely dependent on oil, we can't stop giving them money, since they would collapse.
I have never heard anyone say such a thing, you must travel in some very strange circles.
:
The world is more interesting when you talk to people you normally wouldn't.
I talk to people from all walks of life, in one of the most multicultural cities in the world, and have never heard such rot.
Surely you must have tweets or blog posts that would support your anecdotes?
"rot" - that people believe that the duty of the First World is to supply money to various countries? You are easily surprised.
Lots of people worldwide support foreign aid, but I have never heard anyone suggest that oil-states should be recipients.
*ex*-oil states is the key bit. They will get very poor, very rapidly. Lots of debt, an economy that consists of welfare (and pretty thin welfare it is for the non-rulers).... then the money to pay the welfare ends....
As a matter of interest - what do you think we should do as we watch the House of Saud on TV trying to outrun the mobs and get to the planes? This will happen in our lifetime...
One thing I am finding a bit weird to trump temporary ban is as if it is has come out of nowhere. He said at every one of those damn rallies he was going to do this if he won.
I don't think it does (correct me if I'm wrong). Green Card/Permanent Residents aren't citizens.
If memory serves John Oliver is a permanent resident and Craig Ferguson became a citizen. So if John Oliver left, Trump would be within his rights to prevent his re-entry.
The point was the constitution applies to people yet to become citizens. Everyone who passed through Ellis Island was subject to the constitution.
One thing I am finding a bit weird to trump temporary ban is as if it is has come out of nowhere. He said at every one of those damn rallies he was going to do this if he won.
It's as if people were taking him seriously but not literally.
If Trump is to come a cropper, this I think is how it will happen. Even Trump supporters respect the constitution more than the man?
I'd argue that the US Constitution applies only to the citizens of the United States (wherever they are) and to the territory (however defined) of the United States. It does not cover treatment of non-US citizens outside US territory.
Incidentally, am I right in thinking that legally (in the States) the Moon is US territory?
Nope, the Outer Space Treaty (of which the US is a signatory) says no one owns it
If others haven't noticed, Mo Farah has been banned from the USA by this edict.
As has the Tory MP for Stratford-upon-Avon.
The PM is asking the Queen to host a state visit for Trump as he bans British citizens from entering his country merely because of where they were born.
There must be millions of disappointed Americans cancelling their stag do’s in Tehran…
I suspect
Which is why his attitude to Saudi will be critical.
Which he why he gave the go-ahead for two .
: :
Yes - I've had conversations with progressive types who are appalled that when we stop needing oil, we will stop giving money to countries who used to have oil. Apparently we should still send the money or something.
Do you have any published source for such a ridiculous anecdote?
As I said - people I've spoken with. I think they were a bit shocked by my happiness at a future state of affairs where, instead of us giving large sums of money to countries run by demented fools, we don't. The environmental thing is a bonus.
As I understand the thinking involved - since their societies are entirely dependent on oil, we can't stop giving them money, since they would collapse.
I have never heard anyone say such a thing, you must travel in some very strange circles.
:
The world is more interesting when you talk to people you normally wouldn't.
I talk to people from all walks of life, in one of the most multicultural cities in the world, and have never heard such rot.
Surely you must have tweets or blog posts that would support your anecdotes?
"rot" - that people believe that the duty d.
Lots of people worldwide support foreign aid, but I have never heard anyone suggest that oil-states should be recipients.
*ex*-oil states is the key bit. They will get very poor, very rapidly. Lots of debt, an economy that consists of welfare (and pretty thin welfare it is for the non-rulers).... then the money to pay the welfare ends....
As a matter of interest - what do you think we should do as we watch the House of Saud on TV trying to outrun the mobs and get to the planes? This will happen in our lifetime...
I would eat popcorn. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
I would always tie our aid to respect for human rights, though famin relief excluded.
I certainly would not support Saudi (via our MoD) in bombing Yemen as we do at the moment under Mrs May.
If others haven't noticed, Mo Farah has been banned from the USA by this edict.
As has the Tory MP for Stratford-upon-Avon.
The PM is asking the Queen to host a state visit for Trump as he bans British citizens from entering his country merely because of where they were born.
Our two heads of government are hand in hand, as of yesterday.
Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.
The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her 'phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week. “She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, "Racial prejudice won't get you anywhere in this country." So she went home.
The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.”
Yes, that was someone else talking.
Given that I have studied Powell for years, and read that speech hundreds of times, did you really think I would be convinced by you posting that?
Is this the old 'Enoch was only reporting what he'd heard said' defence? I'm surprised anyone still goes with that.
Reading a letter from a constituent is what it is
If you go with the approach that Powell was quoting verbatim, then you're committed to a further mysterious narrator whose account of the events Powell is relying on. This is arguably even more irresponsible, as he hasn't even heard the stuff first hand. But enough of this exegesis. I won't convince you, and you won't convince me. What's Trump up to?
If Trump is to come a cropper, this I think is how it will happen. Even Trump supporters respect the constitution more than the man?
I'd argue that the US Constitution applies only to the citizens of the United States (wherever they are) and to the territory (however defined) of the United States. It does not cover treatment of non-US citizens outside US territory.
Incidentally, am I right in thinking that legally (in the States) the Moon is US territory?
So natural born loonies are welcome...
Reaching deep into my infinite resources of pedantry, whilst the Moon is US territory, it is not a State, and would not necessarily confer right of entry into the States.
If others haven't noticed, Mo Farah has been banned from the USA by this edict.
As has the Tory MP for Stratford-upon-Avon.
The PM is asking the Queen to host a state visit for Trump as he bans British citizens from entering his country merely because of where they were born.
Surely Mo Farah just needs to renounce his Somalian passport?
There must be millions of disappointed Americans cancelling their stag do’s in Tehran…
I suspect
Which is why his attitude to Saudi will be critical.
Which he why he gave the go-ahead for two .
: :
Yes - I've had conversations with progressive types who are appalled that when we stop needing oil, we will stop giving money to countries who used to have oil. Apparently we should still send the money or something.
Do you have any published source for such a ridiculous anecdote?
:
I have never heard anyone say such a thing, you must travel in some very strange circles.
:
The world is more interesting when you talk to people you normally wouldn't.
I talk to people from all walks of life, in one of the most multicultural cities in the world, and have never heard such rot.
Surely you must have tweets or blog posts that would support your anecdotes?
"rot" - that people believe that the duty d.
Lots of people worldwide support foreign aid, but I have never heard anyone suggest that oil-states should be recipients.
*ex*-oil states is the key bit. They will get very poor, very rapidly. Lots of debt, an economy that consists of welfare (and pretty thin welfare it is for the non-rulers).... then the money to pay the welfare ends....
As a matter of interest - what do you think we should do as we watch the House of Saud on TV trying to outrun the mobs and get to the planes? This will happen in our lifetime...
I would eat popcorn. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
I would always tie our aid to respect for human rights, though famin relief excluded.
I certainly would not support Saudi (via our MoD) in bombing Yemen as we do at the moment under Mrs May.
I must be nastier than you - I would ensure they got asylum. In Pakistan. Where they have spent billions on making the place into their kind of fundamentalist hell hole.
And make sure they get jobs on construction sites. For those who don't know, the Gulf states have a special line in abusing workers they import. Quite a few come from Pakistan...
If only someone had predicted, with devastating accuracy, what might happen...
But your
anger was mixed
I guess some black people or "negros" are from the Commonwealth.......
I think ll
I happen to think that Black people have assimilated pretty well in England, the number of people of mixed heritage is evidence of that. But if we were going to be picky, Lee Rigby's murderers...
Thats the thing. 10 or twenty years ago people were not saying black have assimilated. The opposite infact.
Well we don't have to wonder, it is not subjective, we can compare the number of babies born to mixed parents of all kinds and we will have proof of who assimilates and who doesnt
At a guess, I would think White people intermarry the most, followed by Black people, followed by East Asians, followed by South Asians and Middle Easterners.
Nope. Whites (as in 'pure' whites) are the least likely to intermarry. The next most reluctant are the various peoples of the sub-continent. Chinese are positively promiscuous about inter-marriage.
"• White British (4%) were least likely to be in inter-ethnic relationships, followed by Bangladeshi (7%), Pakistani (9%) and Indian (12%) ethnic groups."
Hence my 'pure'.
Is that a % of White British? In actual number they are surely the highest?
And isn't there a ceiling for white British (being the most in absolute number) that doesn't apply to any other group?
Of course they are - hence my initial guess
Yes, so to measure by % of group in a mixed relationship is nonsense
If a country of 1m blue people accepted 100k of immigrants who were all green, and all of the immigrants entered a relationship with a native, that would be 100% of green people and only 10% of blue people. You couldn't infer that green people were more up for mixed relationships from it though
One thing I am finding a bit weird to trump temporary ban is as if it is has come out of nowhere. He said at every one of those damn rallies he was going to do this if he won.
People aren't used to politicians who actually keep their promises.
If others haven't noticed, Mo Farah has been banned from the USA by this edict.
As has the Tory MP for Stratford-upon-Avon.
The PM is asking the Queen to host a state visit for Trump as he bans British citizens from entering his country merely because of where they were born.
If others haven't noticed, Mo Farah has been banned from the USA by this edict.
As has the Tory MP for Stratford-upon-Avon.
The PM is asking the Queen to host a state visit for Trump as he bans British citizens from entering his country merely because of where they were born.
There must be millions of disappointed Americans cancelling their stag do’s in Tehran…
I suspect
Which is why his attitude to Saudi will be critical.
Which he why he gave the go-ahead for two new oil pipelines last week. One imagines the US attitude to Saudi will change overnight, the minute the US becomes properly self-sufficient in fossil fuels. It's also why the UK and other O&G importers need to get fracking yesterday.
Yes - I've had conversations with progressive types who are appalled that when we stop needing oil, we will stop giving money to countries who used to have oil. Apparently we should still send the money or something.
Do you have any published source for such a ridiculous anecdote?
As I said - people I've spoken with. I think they were a bit shocked by my happiness at a future state of affairs where, instead of us giving large sums of money to countries run by demented fools, we don't. The environmental thing is a bonus. As I understand the thinking involved - since their societies are entirely dependent on oil, we can't stop giving them money, since they would collapse.
I have never heard anyone say such a thing, you must travel in some very strange circles.
The world is more interesting when you talk to people you normally wouldn't.
I talk to people from all walks of life, in one of the most multicultural cities in the world, and have never heard such rot.
Surely you must have tweets or blog posts that would support your anecdotes?
"rot" - that people believe that the duty of the First World is to supply money to various countries? You are easily surprised.
Lots of people worldwide support foreign aid, but I have never heard anyone suggest that oil-states should be recipients.
*ex*-oil states is the key bit. They will get very poor, very rapidly. Lots of debt, an economy that consists of welfare (and pretty thin welfare it is for the non-rulers).... then the money to pay the welfare ends....
As a matter of interest - what do you think we should do as we watch the House of Saud on TV trying to outrun the mobs and get to the planes? This will happen in our lifetime...
Can somebody link to where the us authorities state dual nations arriving from say the EU are now banned. I have read bbc and sky report on this policy and neither state this as the case (they don't say it isn't either but you would think they would as it is rather pertinent to UK citizens).
If Trump is to come a cropper, this I think is how it will happen. Even Trump supporters respect the constitution more than the man?
I'd argue that the US Constitution applies only to the citizens of the United States (wherever they are) and to the territory (however defined) of the United States. It does not cover treatment of non-US citizens outside US territory.
Incidentally, am I right in thinking that legally (in the States) the Moon is US territory?
So natural born loonies are welcome...
Reaching deep into my infinite resources of pedantry, whilst the Moon is US territory, it is not a State, and would not necessarily confer right of entry into the States.
How is the moon US Territory? There's no people or settlements!
If others haven't noticed, Mo Farah has been banned from the USA by this edict.
As has the Tory MP for Stratford-upon-Avon.
The PM is asking the Queen to host a state visit for Trump as he bans British citizens from entering his country merely because of where they were born.
The Tory MP who was also the co-founder of YouGov
Tbe Queen should sit him next to Trump at the state dinner, with Mo Farah on the other side
Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.
Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.”
Yes, that was someone else talking.
Given that I have studied Powell for years, and read that speech hundreds of times, did you really think I would be convinced by you posting that?
Is this the old 'Enoch was only reporting what he'd heard said' defence? I'm surprised anyone still goes with that.
Reading a letter from a constituent is what it is
If you go with the approach that Powell was quoting verbatim, then you're committed to a further mysterious narrator whose account of the events Powell is relying on. This is arguably even more irresponsible, as he hasn't even heard the stuff first hand. But enough of this exegesis. I won't convince you, and you won't convince me. What's Trump up to?
Powell was relating how incendiary the atmosphere was in his constituency in order to show why the race relations bill would do more harm than good. Quoting a constituent seemed a fair way of doing so.
Wonder how long that will last, or if it is even real in the first place!
Makes interesting reading. Says that an "unholy trinity" of Pence, Ryan and Preibus are trying to keep Trump from his worst instincts (while still suspecting him of Russian entanglements). Also says there's a pissing war between Bannon and Preibus.
Wonder how long that will last, or if it is even real in the first place!
Makes interesting reading. Says that an "unholy trinity" of Pence, Ryan and Preibus are trying to keep Trump from his worst instincts (while still suspecting him of Russian entanglements). Also says there's a pissing war between Bannon and Preibus.
If Trump is to come a cropper, this I think is how it will happen. Even Trump supporters respect the constitution more than the man?
I'd argue that the US Constitution applies only to the citizens of the United States (wherever they are) and to the territory (however defined) of the United States. It does not cover treatment of non-US citizens outside US territory.
Incidentally, am I right in thinking that legally (in the States) the Moon is US territory?
Nope, the Outer Space Treaty (of which the US is a signatory) says no one owns it
If Trump is to come a cropper, this I think is how it will happen. Even Trump supporters respect the constitution more than the man?
I'd argue that the US Constitution applies only to the citizens of the United States (wherever they are) and to the territory (however defined) of the United States. It does not cover treatment of non-US citizens outside US territory.
Incidentally, am I right in thinking that legally (in the States) the Moon is US territory?
Nope, the Outer Space Treaty (of which the US is a signatory) says no one owns it
Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.
Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.”
Yes, that was someone else talking.
Given that I have studied Powell for years, and read that speech hundreds of times, did you really think I would be convinced by you posting that?
Is this the old 'Enoch was only reporting what he'd heard said' defence? I'm surprised anyone still goes with that.
Reading a letter from a constituent is what it is
If you go with the approach that Powell was quoting verbatim, then you're committed to a further mysterious narrator whose account of the events Powell is relying on. This is arguably even more irresponsible, as he hasn't even heard the stuff first hand. But enough of this exegesis. I won't convince you, and you won't convince me. What's Trump up to?
Powell was relating how incendiary the atmosphere was in his constituency in order to show why the race relations bill would do more harm than good. Quoting a constituent seemed a fair way of doing so.
Trumps doing what he said he'd do isn't he?
We were patiently told by the wiseacres that he should be taken seriously not literally. Seems like the liberal handwringers had it right after all.
Can somebody link to where the us authorities state dual nations arriving from say the EU are now banned. I have read bbc and sky report on this policy and neither state this as the case (they don't say it isn't either but you would think they would as it is rather pertinent to UK citizens).
The trouble is, the original XO doesn't give sufficient detail. We're just getting garbled reports from various HS and SD spokesdroids. Here's the XO itself:
Wonder how long that will last, or if it is even real in the first place!
Makes interesting reading. Says that an "unholy trinity" of Pence, Ryan and Preibus are trying to keep Trump from his worst instincts (while still suspecting him of Russian entanglements). Also says there's a pissing war between Bannon and Preibus.
Again, sounds quite authentic.
Yeah, I don't follow things closely enough to make a call whether it is real or not, but you would expect them to make it sound authentic if it wasn't!
@nadhimzahawi: @timothy_stanley Had confirmation that the order does apply to myself and my wife as we were both born in Iraq. Even if we are not dual Nat.
@nadhimzahawi: @timothy_stanley Had confirmation that the order does apply to myself and my wife as we were both born in Iraq. Even if we are not dual Nat.
Wow, so they are just British citizens and they are still banned (albeit temporarily)?
Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.
Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.”
Yes, that was someone else talking.
Given that I have studied Powell for years, and read that speech hundreds of times, did you really think I would be convinced by you posting that?
Is this the old 'Enoch was only reporting what he'd heard said' defence? I'm surprised anyone still goes with that.
Reading a letter from a constituent is what it is
If you go with the approach that Powell was quoting verbatim, then you're committed to a further mysterious narrator whose account of the events Powell is relying on. This is arguably even more irresponsible, as he hasn't even heard the stuff first hand. But enough of this exegesis. I won't convince you, and you won't convince me. What's Trump up to?
Powell was relating how incendiary the atmosphere was in his constituency in order to show why the race relations bill would do more harm than good. Quoting a constituent seemed a fair way of doing so.
Trumps doing what he said he'd do isn't he?
We were patiently told by the wiseacres that he should be taken seriously not literally. Seems like the liberal handwringers had it right after all.
Were we? I wasn't really paying attention. Hopefully he is trying a new way of doing things where you go too hard to show you mean business then ease off. As Islamic immigration is a disaster for the west, it's worth a try. Crossing our fingers and hoping didn't work.
If Trump is to come a cropper, this I think is how it will happen. Even Trump supporters respect the constitution more than the man?
I'd argue that the US Constitution applies only to the citizens of the United States (wherever they are) and to the territory (however defined) of the United States. It does not cover treatment of non-US citizens outside US territory.
Incidentally, am I right in thinking that legally (in the States) the Moon is US territory?
So natural born loonies are welcome...
Reaching deep into my infinite resources of pedantry, whilst the Moon is US territory, it is not a State, and would not necessarily confer right of entry into the States.
How is the moon US Territory? There's no people or settlements!
Whilst conceding @not_on_fire 's point that the Moon is not US territory (GODSDAMNIT!), I must point out that there are at least six US established sites on the lunar surface, with flags and footprints to match.
This exercise in legal thought has an interesting practical offshoot. If memory serves, the Russian claim to certain Arctic bits relies on one of their submersibles planting a Russian flag on the seabed. No human has walked there, and none can without extremely specialised survival equipment. Yet the full force of Russian legal theory rests on that small patch of mud.
Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.
Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.”
Yes, that was someone else talking.
Given that I have studied Powell for years, and read that speech hundreds of times, did you really think I would be convinced by you posting that?
Is this the old 'Enoch was only reporting what he'd heard said' defence? I'm surprised anyone still goes with that.
Reading a letter from a constituent is what it is
If you go with the approach that Powell was quoting verbatim, then you're committed to a further mysterious narrator whose account of the events Powell is relying on. This is arguably even more irresponsible, as he hasn't even heard the stuff first hand. But enough of this exegesis. I won't convince you, and you won't convince me. What's Trump up to?
Powell was relating how incendiary the atmosphere was in his constituency in order to show why the race relations bill would do more harm than good. Quoting a constituent seemed a fair way of doing so.
Trumps doing what he said he'd do isn't he?
We were patiently told by the wiseacres that he should be taken seriously not literally. Seems like the liberal handwringers had it right after all.
Were we? I wasn't really paying attention. Hopefully he is trying a new way of doing things where you go too hard to show you mean business then ease off. As Islamic immigration is a disaster for the west, it's worth a try. Crossing our fingers and hoping didn't work.
Being tough on immigration just lost me a whole bucketful of votes-said no one ever.
If others haven't noticed, Mo Farah has been banned from the USA by this edict.
As has the Tory MP for Stratford-upon-Avon.
The PM is asking the Queen to host a state visit for Trump as he bans British citizens from entering his country merely because of where they were born.
The Tory MP who was also the co-founder of YouGov
Tbe Queen should sit him next to Trump at the state dinner, with Mo Farah on the other side
#dinnerpartyfromhell
You mean Sir Mo can't go back to his training camp?
Given it seems different officials are giving different interpretations, perhaps what is really happening is trump sit there like in the apprentice and goes you're fired banned...
If others haven't noticed, Mo Farah has been banned from the USA by this edict.
As has the Tory MP for Stratford-upon-Avon.
The PM is asking the Queen to host a state visit for Trump as he bans British citizens from entering his country merely because of where they were born.
The Tory MP who was also the co-founder of YouGov
Tbe Queen should sit him next to Trump at the state dinner, with Mo Farah on the other side
#dinnerpartyfromhell
You mean Sir Mo can't go back to his training camp?
I see there is a lot of outrage about a foreign country deciding who they will and won't let in. I assume you'll all be boycotting the States for the next four years?
Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.
Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.”
Yes, that was someone else talking.
Given that I have studied Powell for years, and read that speech hundreds of times, did you really think I would be convinced by you posting that?
Is this the old 'Enoch was only reporting what he'd heard said' defence? I'm surprised anyone still goes with that.
Reading a letter from a constituent is what it is
If you go with the approach that Powell was quoting verbatim, then you're committed to a further mysterious narrator whose account of the events Powell is relying on. This is arguably even more irresponsible, as he hasn't even heard the stuff first hand. But enough of this exegesis. I won't convince you, and you won't convince me. What's Trump up to?
Powell was relating how incendiary the atmosphere was in his constituency in order to show why the race relations bill would do more harm than good. Quoting a constituent seemed a fair way of doing so.
Trumps doing what he said he'd do isn't he?
We were patiently told by the wiseacres that he should be taken seriously not literally. Seems like the liberal handwringers had it right after all.
When even Trump's senior spokesnumpty is saying it, what's a boy to do?
'Conway: Judge Trump by what's in his heart, not what comes out of his mouth'
I see there is a lot of outrage about a foreign country deciding who they will and won't let in. I assume you'll all be boycotting the States for the next four years?
You mean, the detention of British citizens trying to enter our closest ally?
If others haven't noticed, Mo Farah has been banned from the USA by this edict.
As has the Tory MP for Stratford-upon-Avon.
The PM is asking the Queen to host a state visit for Trump as he bans British citizens from entering his country merely because of where they were born.
The Tory MP who was also the co-founder of YouGov
Tbe Queen should sit him next to Trump at the state dinner, with Mo Farah on the other side
#dinnerpartyfromhell
You mean Sir Mo can't go back to his training camp?
If Trump is to come a cropper, this I think is how it will happen. Even Trump supporters respect the constitution more than the man?
I'd argue that the US Constitution applies only to the citizens of the United States (wherever they are) and to the territory (however defined) of the United States. It does not cover treatment of non-US citizens outside US territory.
Incidentally, am I right in thinking that legally (in the States) the Moon is US territory?
So natural born loonies are welcome...
Reaching deep into my infinite resources of pedantry, whilst the Moon is US territory, it is not a State, and would not necessarily confer right of entry into the States.
How is the moon US Territory? There's no people or settlements!
Whilst conceding @not_on_fire 's point that the Moon is not US territory (GODSDAMNIT!), I must point out that there are at least six US established sites on the lunar surface, with flags and footprints to match.
This exercise in legal thought has an interesting practical offshoot. If memory serves, the Russian claim to certain Arctic bits relies on one of their submersibles planting a Russian flag on the seabed. No human has walked there, and none can without extremely specialised survival equipment. Yet the full force of Russian legal theory rests on that small patch of mud.
"Because I have one of the greatest jobs in the solar system. As long as the Trumpinium keeps flowing, I can do anything I want. Anything! In fact, the only thing I worry about is, one day, if the Democrats win, it all might end."
I see there is a lot of outrage about a foreign country deciding who they will and won't let in. I assume you'll all be boycotting the States for the next four years?
My passport is expired . I think it's the dual nationality thing that's vexed me. Hand on heart, I can't summon up any outrage over Sudan or Yemen etc. I think the Syria refugee ban is heartless mind.
If Trump is to come a cropper, this I think is how it will happen. Even Trump supporters respect the constitution more than the man?
I'd argue that the US Constitution applies only to the citizens of the United States (wherever they are) and to the territory (however defined) of the United States. It does not cover treatment of non-US citizens outside US territory.
Incidentally, am I right in thinking that legally (in the States) the Moon is US territory?
Nope, the Outer Space Treaty (of which the US is a signatory) says no one owns it
Damn, I think you're right...
Not straightforward. The USA can't make the moon the 51st state, but it may be that, say, Exxon can acquire all the mineral rights for itself under Obama's Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act 2015. http://deepspaceindustries.com/is-asteroid-mining-legal/ - bear in mind that this is by no means an impartial overview of the subject
I see there is a lot of outrage about a foreign country deciding who they will and won't let in. I assume you'll all be boycotting the States for the next four years?
You mean, the detention of British citizens trying to enter our closest ally?
Have any British citizens been so detained? If so HMG/May definitely shouldn't be quiet on this.
@tamcohen: British MP born in Iraq would not be let in to US under this policy. Will be very difficult for PM to continue to avoid expressing a view twitter.com/nadhimzahawi/s…
I see there is a lot of outrage about a foreign country deciding who they will and won't let in. I assume you'll all be boycotting the States for the next four years?
My passport is expired . I think it's the dual nationality thing that's vexed me. Hand on heart, I can't summon up any outrage over Sudan or Yemen etc. I think the Syria refugee ban is heartless mind.
It's not just dual nationality. If you are a British citizen solely but born in one of those countries you are covered by the ban. See the Brexit-supporting Tory MP for Stratford upon Avon.
I see there is a lot of outrage about a foreign country deciding who they will and won't let in. I assume you'll all be boycotting the States for the next four years?
You mean, the detention of British citizens trying to enter our closest ally?
Have any British citizens been so detained? If so HMG/May definitely shouldn't be quiet on this.
Agreed. It's clearly been implemented very badly, but it's up to the US what they do even if it is bonkers.
@tamcohen: British MP born in Iraq would not be let in to US under this policy. Will be very difficult for PM to continue to avoid expressing a view twitter.com/nadhimzahawi/s…
This is the relevant part of the order:
I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order
Does this all hinge on what "from" means? Even more mad if it is by birth rather than nationality.
I see there is a lot of outrage about a foreign country deciding who they will and won't let in. I assume you'll all be boycotting the States for the next four years?
My passport is expired . I think it's the dual nationality thing that's vexed me. Hand on heart, I can't summon up any outrage over Sudan or Yemen etc. I think the Syria refugee ban is heartless mind.
It's not just dual nationality. If you are a British citizen solely but born in one of those countries you are covered by the ban. See the Brexit-supporting Tory MP for Stratford upon Avon.
I saw that. But I didn't see anything pertinent in the XO (I'm a bit tired, so may have missed it). I'm doing the old fashioned thing of waiting for some clarity. I appreciate that we might be on the verge of an American Fourth Reich, but it's a tad more likely that this is going to be a few days of diplomatic handbaggery and all will be well with our folk.
If Trump is to come a cropper, this I think is how it will happen. Even Trump supporters respect the constitution more than the man?
I'd argue that the US Constitution applies only to the citizens of the United States (wherever they are) and to the territory (however defined) of the United States. It does not cover treatment of non-US citizens outside US territory.
Incidentally, am I right in thinking that legally (in the States) the Moon is US territory?
Nope, the Outer Space Treaty (of which the US is a signatory) says no one owns it
Damn, I think you're right...
Not straightforward. The USA can't make the moon the 51st state, but it may be that, say, Exxon can acquire all the mineral rights for itself under Obama's Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act 2015. http://deepspaceindustries.com/is-asteroid-mining-legal/ - bear in mind that this is by no means an impartial overview of the subject
The Chinese will draw a dotted line around the moon and tell everyone else to eff off.
I see there is a lot of outrage about a foreign country deciding who they will and won't let in. I assume you'll all be boycotting the States for the next four years?
My passport is expired . I think it's the dual nationality thing that's vexed me. Hand on heart, I can't summon up any outrage over Sudan or Yemen etc. I think the Syria refugee ban is heartless mind.
It's not just dual nationality. If you are a British citizen solely but born in one of those countries you are covered by the ban. See the Brexit-supporting Tory MP for Stratford upon Avon.
I saw that. But I didn't see anything pertinent in the XO (I'm a bit tired, so may have missed it). I'm doing the old fashioned thing of waiting for some clarity. I appreciate that we might be on the verge of an American Fourth Reich, but it's a tad more likely that this is going to be a few days of diplomatic handbaggery and all will be well with our folk.
Of course. There will be clarifications and there will be backtracking and we'll all move on. Then Truump will do something else. We should be keeping as far away as possible from him, not walking hand in hand.
If Trump is to come a cropper, this I think is how it will happen. Even Trump supporters respect the constitution more than the man?
I'd argue that the US Constitution applies only to the citizens of the United States (wherever they are) and to the territory (however defined) of the United States. It does not cover treatment of non-US citizens outside US territory.
Incidentally, am I right in thinking that legally (in the States) the Moon is US territory?
Nope, the Outer Space Treaty (of which the US is a signatory) says no one owns it
Damn, I think you're right...
Not straightforward. The USA can't make the moon the 51st state, but it may be that, say, Exxon can acquire all the mineral rights for itself under Obama's Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act 2015. http://deepspaceindustries.com/is-asteroid-mining-legal/ - bear in mind that this is by no means an impartial overview of the subject
In fact, the new law explicitly acknowledges the continuing validity and importance of Article II of the Outer Space Treaty, and declares to the world community that the U.S. does not assert sovereignty, exclusive rights, or ownership of any celestial body. Under Title IV, U.S. citizens have the right to retain the extracted material from asteroids and celestial bodies but not the right to own or keep the entire asteroid or celestial body. Much like fishing trawlers going to sea, the fishermen have the right to keep the fish that they catch, but have no ownership rights to the sea itself. Similarly, the U.S. space resource utilization industry is not claiming any ownership or right to the asteroid or space resource itself, just the right to retain the material extracted from such resources.
Hmm. That reading implies that you can own stuff you mine from an asteroid, but not the asteroid itself. That's not going to fly. Better just to renounce the Outer Space Treaty and say "look, if it's outside the Earth-Moon system, it's yours if you can keep it". Then we can start building the Expanse
Watching Donald Trump sign that order made me think of Rayner Goddard, England's lord chief justice from 1948 to 1956, who according to his clerk always had a fresh pair of trousers ready whenever he passed a death sentence. But Goddard probably didn't explain "This is big stuff" midway through his action, as Trump did.
I see there is a lot of outrage about a foreign country deciding who they will and won't let in. I assume you'll all be boycotting the States for the next four years?
My passport is expired . I think it's the dual nationality thing that's vexed me. Hand on heart, I can't summon up any outrage over Sudan or Yemen etc. I think the Syria refugee ban is heartless mind.
It's not just dual nationality. If you are a British citizen solely but born in one of those countries you are covered by the ban. See the Brexit-supporting Tory MP for Stratford upon Avon.
I saw that. But I didn't see anything pertinent in the XO (I'm a bit tired, so may have missed it). I'm doing the old fashioned thing of waiting for some clarity. I appreciate that we might be on the verge of an American Fourth Reich, but it's a tad more likely that this is going to be a few days of diplomatic handbaggery and all will be well with our folk.
Of course. There will be clarifications and there will be backtracking and we'll all move on. Then Truump will do something else. We should be keeping as far away as possible from him, not walking hand in hand.
Our strategy should be to hug the administration, not Trump, distasteful though that may be to some. He's too much of a loose cannon. We also need to build bi-partisan relationships with the two Houses - don't want all our eggs in the Republican basket.
Otherwise, I agree (while rolling my eyes at your symbolism. I don't do symbols, must be a spectrum thing).
*edit* May has just landed at Heathrow. Let's see what she has to say, if anything.
It is sickening to witness the snivelling, skin crawling, sinister sycophancy from the PB Leaver Trumptons ramp up a level with every passing day. The pathetic, cap-doffing snotty slugs sliming up to the Grade A twat is a truly disgusting spectacle. Eurgh.
Comments
bed-wetting LeftieTory MP...@heidiallen75: Strong leadership means not being afraid to tell someone powerful when they're wrong. It's an ethos this country is proud of @theresa_may
If memory serves John Oliver is a permanent resident and Craig Ferguson became a citizen. So if John Oliver left, Trump would be within his rights to prevent his re-entry.
As a matter of interest - what do you think we should do as we watch the House of Saud on TV trying to outrun the mobs and get to the planes? This will happen in our lifetime...
The PM is asking the Queen to host a state visit for Trump as he bans British citizens from entering his country merely because of where they were born.
Which, if nothing else, is ironic...
https://twitter.com/nicolasturgeon/status/825445219759955972
I would always tie our aid to respect for human rights, though famin relief excluded.
I certainly would not support Saudi (via our MoD) in bombing Yemen as we do at the moment under Mrs May.
https://twitter.com/jeremycliffe/status/825440720517492736
And make sure they get jobs on construction sites. For those who don't know, the Gulf states have a special line in abusing workers they import. Quite a few come from Pakistan...
If a country of 1m blue people accepted 100k of immigrants who were all green, and all of the immigrants entered a relationship with a native, that would be 100% of green people and only 10% of blue people. You couldn't infer that green people were more up for mixed relationships from it though
People aren't used to politicians who actually keep their promises.
#dinnerpartyfromhell
Trumps doing what he said he'd do isn't he?
Says that an "unholy trinity" of Pence, Ryan and Preibus are trying to keep Trump from his worst instincts (while still suspecting him of Russian entanglements). Also says there's a pissing war between Bannon and Preibus.
Again, sounds quite authentic.
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/825440583120457729
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/27/donald-trump-executive-order-immigration-full-text
https://twitter.com/nadhimzahawi/status/825445925275500545
This exercise in legal thought has an interesting practical offshoot. If memory serves, the Russian claim to certain Arctic bits relies on one of their submersibles planting a Russian flag on the seabed. No human has walked there, and none can without extremely specialised survival equipment. Yet the full force of Russian legal theory rests on that small patch of mud.
https://youtu.be/lXFf3pTW6aI
Except Trump was the Snake, and as he bit "You knew Damn well I was a snake when you took me in"
firedbanned...Putin next up for him isn't it ?
A grand old game of diplomatic Top Trumps tbh
'Conway: Judge Trump by what's in his heart, not what comes out of his mouth'
http://tinyurl.com/h86donc
I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order
Does this all hinge on what "from" means? Even more mad if it is by birth rather than nationality.
And so it begins.
Hmm. That reading implies that you can own stuff you mine from an asteroid, but not the asteroid itself. That's not going to fly. Better just to renounce the Outer Space Treaty and say "look, if it's outside the Earth-Moon system, it's yours if you can keep it". Then we can start building the Expanse
The Arab League will probably do nothing.
He has a proven track record of not thinking through the consequences of his actions.
Otherwise, I agree (while rolling my eyes at your symbolism. I don't do symbols, must be a spectrum thing).
*edit* May has just landed at Heathrow. Let's see what she has to say, if anything.