Agree with @foxinsoxuk from the previous thread we are heading for US style culture wars. Faisal Islam also mentioned this in a recent article on Sky News' website as well. Seeing reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here only confirms my belief that's what we are heading to.
Then again, PB may not be entirely representative.
There's a lot of critique of the American zeitgeist going on from people who know no more about the American zeitgeist than I do. Billie Holiday recorded Strange Fruit in 1939, the "strange fruit" being the bodies of lynched black men hanging from Southern magnolia trees. It isn't the case that there was then a blissful interlude of general niceness and interracial harmony rudely terminated by the rise of Trumpery. This is just American business as usual, and the fear that it is now about to cross the Atlantic is overblown.
I don't see what "reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here" you mean, incidentally. You may be diagnosing thoughtcrime to a greater extent than the text will stand.
We really don't have the legacy of racial tension to the same extent. Basically, half the country had to fight the other half before ending slavery. We generally agreed it had been bad. Nor do fundamentalist religions have such a hold on our politics. So we won't see "culture wars" in the same way. The voting differentials between generations are economically driven. Re Charlottesville A democratically elected council voted to sell a statue. A bunch of people not connected to the City decided they didn't like it, organised Online and turned up mob-handed and in many cases armed, resulting in 3 deaths. They are out of order, because if they don't live there it is none of their business. Or am I missing something?
If the anti-protesters hadn't turned up there wouldn't have been a riot and likely wouldn't have been the deaths.
If the Far Right hadn't shown up there would have been no anti-protestors.
The Boris magic has long since faded. I'm not sure the Tory party will ever be truly happy. They had a brief period when they pretended Theresa was a latter-day Maggie but that went horribly sour. I suspect only Rees-Mogg as leader would make the Tories feel comfortable about themselves again, or possibly even Farage if he could be persuaded.
David Davis, whose face is increasingly coming to resemble a female baboon's pudenda in estrus as the Brexit catastrophe unravels, could be just the intellectually limited golf club bore for which the Conservative core is hankering.
No, if there is any compromise at all with the EU during the negotiations, which there will almost certainly be through some form of transition period, Davis will share some of the blame with the membership. Boris or Rees-Mogg are more likely to win the membership vote in my view, though it will almost certainly be one of those 3 who succeeds May
This Year Zero approach to history and culture will not end well. I don't think Mao's China or contemporary South Africa are models to emulate.
By this logic, they will have to blow up half of Mount Rushmore.
Stone Mountain is the more pertinent problem. Bigger than Mount Rushmore and in a city that is majority African American. Completed in 1972 it includes not just General Lee and Jackson, but also Jefferson Davis, the Confederate President, and funded by the Daughters of the Confederacy. Not only that, it was the founding place of the modern KKK.
This Year Zero approach to history and culture will not end well. I don't think Mao's China or contemporary South Africa are models to emulate.
By this logic, they will have to blow up half of Mount Rushmore.
Stone Mountain is the more pertinent problem. Bigger than Mount Rushmore and in a city that is majority African American. Completed in 1972 it includes not just General Lee and Jackson, but also Jefferson Davis, the Confederate President, and funded by the Daughters of the Confederacy. Not only that, it was the founding place of the modern KKK.
Bubba Watson's done his bit by removing the confederate flag from the General Lee car used in the Dukes of Hazard. Personally I think if he has a problem with the flag he should have had a problem with the show at the time.
Agree with @foxinsoxuk from the previous thread we are heading for US style culture wars. Faisal Islam also mentioned this in a recent article on Sky News' website as well. Seeing reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here only confirms my belief that's what we are heading to.
Then again, PB may not be entirely representative.
There's a lot of critique of the American zeitgeist going on from people who know no more about the American zeitgeist than I do. Billie Holiday recorded Strange Fruit in 1939, the "strange fruit" being the bodies of lynched black men hanging from Southern magnolia trees. It isn't the case that there was then a blissful interlude of general niceness and interracial harmony rudely terminated by the rise of Trumpery. This is just American business as usual, and the fear that it is now about to cross the Atlantic is overblown.
I don't see what "reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here" you mean, incidentally. You may be diagnosing thoughtcrime to a greater extent than the text will stand.
We really don't have the legacy of racial tension to the same extent. Basically, half the country had to fight the other half before ending slavery. We generally agreed it had been bad. Nor do fundamentalist religions have such a hold on our politics. So we won't see "culture wars" in the same way. The voting differentials between generations are economically driven. Re Charlottesville A democratically elected council voted to sell a statue. A bunch of people not connected to the City decided they didn't like it, organised Online and turned up mob-handed and in many cases armed, resulting in 3 deaths. They are out of order, because if they don't live there it is none of their business. Or am I missing something?
If the anti-protesters hadn't turned up there wouldn't have been a riot and likely wouldn't have been the deaths.
Quality victim blaming. 5 stars. Would victim blame again.
Agree with @foxinsoxuk from the previous thread we are heading for US style culture wars. Faisal Islam also mentioned this in a recent article on Sky News' website as well. Seeing reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here only confirms my belief that's what we are heading to.
Then again, PB may not be entirely representative.
There's a lot of critique of the American zeitgeist going on from people who know no more about the American zeitgeist than I do. Billie Holiday recorded Strange Fruit in 1939, the "strange fruit" being the bodies of lynched black men hanging from Southern magnolia trees. It isn't the case that there was then a blissful interlude of general niceness and interracial harmony rudely terminated by the rise of Trumpery. This is just American business as usual, and the fear that it is now about to cross the Atlantic is overblown.
I don't see what "reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here" you mean, incidentally. You may be diagnosing thoughtcrime to a greater extent than the text will stand.
We really don't have the legacy of racial tension to the same extent. Basically, half the country had to fight the other half before ending slavery. We generally agreed it had been bad. Nor do fundamentalist religions have such a hold on our politics. So we won't see "culture wars" in the same way. The voting differentials between generations are economically driven. Re Charlottesville A democratically elected council voted to sell a statue. A bunch of people not connected to the City decided they didn't like it, organised Online and turned up mob-handed and in many cases armed, resulting in 3 deaths. They are out of order, because if they don't live there it is none of their business. Or am I missing something?
If the anti-protesters hadn't turned up there wouldn't have been a riot and likely wouldn't have been the deaths.
No! The young lady died because some red-neck nazi half -wit drove over her at speed in a 2 tonne Dodge Challenger.
Do you genuinely believe the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the anti-nazi protesters or are you just trolling us?
The Queen is preparing to abdicate the throne and make Prince Charles the King, according to royal sources.
Queen Elizabeth, 92, is alleged to have told her inner circle of plans to hang up her crown at the age of 95.
Clarence House is making no comment about 'Plan Regency', which involves a piece of legislation called the Regency Act coming into force.
"I have spoken to a number of high-ranking courtiers who made it clear that preparations for a transition are moving ahead at pace," royal commentator for the Daily Mail, Robert Jobson, said.
"They have all confirmed that a Regency with Charles taking the lead is now, at the very least, a real possibility."
Agree with @foxinsoxuk from the previous thread we are heading for US style culture wars. Faisal Islam also mentioned this in a recent article on Sky News' website as well. Seeing reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here only confirms my belief that's what we are heading to.
Then again, PB may not be entirely representative.
Basically it's been about many white people mainly from the south denying black people are equal to them. That is the crux of the matter.
That is certainly one side of the coin; the other side is left-wingers trying to poke right wing and/or religious White Americans in the eye, whenever they can.
This Year Zero approach to history and culture will not end well. I don't think Mao's China or contemporary South Africa are models to emulate.
By this logic, they will have to blow up half of Mount Rushmore.
Stone Mountain is the more pertinent problem. Bigger than Mount Rushmore and in a city that is majority African American. Completed in 1972 it includes not just General Lee and Jackson, but also Jefferson Davis, the Confederate President, and funded by the Daughters of the Confederacy. Not only that, it was the founding place of the modern KKK.
Bubba Watson's done his bit by removing the confederate flag from the General Lee car used in the Dukes of Hazard. Personally I think if he has a problem with the flag he should have had a problem with the show at the time.
what a load of crap
symbols mean different things fior different people
it's the same with the England flag
just becuase some intolerant wanky lefty decides someone elses symbol of identity isnt to their liking is no reason to ban it.
I dont like the french tricloour, thats no reason to ban it.
The Queen is preparing to abdicate the throne and make Prince Charles the King, according to royal sources.
Queen Elizabeth, 92, is alleged to have told her inner circle of plans to hang up her crown at the age of 95.
Clarence House is making no comment about 'Plan Regency', which involves a piece of legislation called the Regency Act coming into force.
"I have spoken to a number of high-ranking courtiers who made it clear that preparations for a transition are moving ahead at pace," royal commentator for the Daily Mail, Robert Jobson, said.
"They have all confirmed that a Regency with Charles taking the lead is now, at the very least, a real possibility."
The Queen is preparing to abdicate the throne and make Prince Charles the King, according to royal sources.
Queen Elizabeth, 92, is alleged to have told her inner circle of plans to hang up her crown at the age of 95.
Clarence House is making no comment about 'Plan Regency', which involves a piece of legislation called the Regency Act coming into force.
"I have spoken to a number of high-ranking courtiers who made it clear that preparations for a transition are moving ahead at pace," royal commentator for the Daily Mail, Robert Jobson, said.
"They have all confirmed that a Regency with Charles taking the lead is now, at the very least, a real possibility."
As someone with Republican tendencies, Charles will do wonders for the Republican movement.
Yes. Support for the royal family will decline rapidly under Charles.
Irrelevant as he will only actually be King for a couple of years before William and Kate take over
He strikes me as the most selfish individual, alive or historical and real or fictional, I have ever heard of. I am pretty certain that when he gets where he wants to be the sceptre will only be priseable from his cold dead fingers.
This Year Zero approach to history and culture will not end well. I don't think Mao's China or contemporary South Africa are models to emulate.
By this logic, they will have to blow up half of Mount Rushmore.
Stone Mountain is the more pertinent problem. Bigger than Mount Rushmore and in a city that is majority African American. Completed in 1972 it includes not just General Lee and Jackson, but also Jefferson Davis, the Confederate President, and funded by the Daughters of the Confederacy. Not only that, it was the founding place of the modern KKK.
I would have thought that while bigger, the fact it is less deeply carved would make it easier to obliterate. Surely a high pressure mixture of water, sand and chemicals as used in fracking would suffice?
Rushmore on the other hand would be an operation comparable in size to this one. Admittedly that turned out to be technically quite simple in the end, but I believe Rushmore is harder rock and reinforced with concrete.
Thinking it over, logic would also dictate getting rid of all four. Washington and Jefferson were slaveholders and Jefferson was also a serial rapist of one of his slaves. Lincoln was a racist who only picked up abolition in a big way as a partisan gesture to help in the Civil War (it is ironic to reflect the first draft of the Thirteenth Amendment guaranteed the protection of slavery). Roosevelt was a hero of the Spanish American war and crushed the last Phillipine opposition by shooting its leaders.
They are all heroes with feet of clay. Get rid of the lot!
The Queen is preparing to abdicate the throne and make Prince Charles the King, according to royal sources.
Queen Elizabeth, 92, is alleged to have told her inner circle of plans to hang up her crown at the age of 95.
Clarence House is making no comment about 'Plan Regency', which involves a piece of legislation called the Regency Act coming into force.
"I have spoken to a number of high-ranking courtiers who made it clear that preparations for a transition are moving ahead at pace," royal commentator for the Daily Mail, Robert Jobson, said.
"They have all confirmed that a Regency with Charles taking the lead is now, at the very least, a real possibility."
As someone with Republican tendencies, Charles will do wonders for the Republican movement.
Yes. Support for the royal family will decline rapidly under Charles.
Irrelevant as he will only actually be King for a couple of years before William and Kate take over
He strikes me as the most selfish individual, alive or historical and real or fictional, I have ever heard of. I am pretty certain that when he gets where he wants to be the sceptre will only be priseable from his cold dead fingers.
Given the lifespans of his parents, and his grandmother, I suspect Charles might be King for a few decades.
The Queen is preparing to abdicate the throne and make Prince Charles the King, according to royal sources.
Queen Elizabeth, 92, is alleged to have told her inner circle of plans to hang up her crown at the age of 95.
Clarence House is making no comment about 'Plan Regency', which involves a piece of legislation called the Regency Act coming into force.
"I have spoken to a number of high-ranking courtiers who made it clear that preparations for a transition are moving ahead at pace," royal commentator for the Daily Mail, Robert Jobson, said.
"They have all confirmed that a Regency with Charles taking the lead is now, at the very least, a real possibility."
As someone with Republican tendencies, Charles will do wonders for the Republican movement.
Yes. Support for the royal family will decline rapidly under Charles.
Irrelevant as he will only actually be King for a couple of years before William and Kate take over
He strikes me as the most selfish individual, alive or historical and real or fictional, I have ever heard of. I am pretty certain that when he gets where he wants to be the sceptre will only be priseable from his cold dead fingers.
Now come on. Richard III was a lot worse. At least Charles doesn't go around kidnapping old ladies, and his nephews, or killing senior figures including his brother in law.
And Richard III as portrayed by Shakespeare was worse again.
The Queen is preparing to abdicate the throne and make Prince Charles the King, according to royal sources.
Queen Elizabeth, 92, is alleged to have told her inner circle of plans to hang up her crown at the age of 95.
Clarence House is making no comment about 'Plan Regency', which involves a piece of legislation called the Regency Act coming into force.
"I have spoken to a number of high-ranking courtiers who made it clear that preparations for a transition are moving ahead at pace," royal commentator for the Daily Mail, Robert Jobson, said.
"They have all confirmed that a Regency with Charles taking the lead is now, at the very least, a real possibility."
As someone with Republican tendencies, Charles will do wonders for the Republican movement.
Yes. Support for the royal family will decline rapidly under Charles.
Irrelevant as he will only actually be King for a couple of years before William and Kate take over
He strikes me as the most selfish individual, alive or historical and real or fictional, I have ever heard of. I am pretty certain that when he gets where he wants to be the sceptre will only be priseable from his cold dead fingers.
Given the lifespans of his parents, and his grandmother, I suspect Charles might be King for a few decades.
His grandfathers died at younger ages - one at 56 and one at 62.
The Queen is preparing to abdicate the throne and make Prince Charles the King, according to royal sources.
Queen Elizabeth, 92, is alleged to have told her inner circle of plans to hang up her crown at the age of 95.
Clarence House is making no comment about 'Plan Regency', which involves a piece of legislation called the Regency Act coming into force.
"I have spoken to a number of high-ranking courtiers who made it clear that preparations for a transition are moving ahead at pace," royal commentator for the Daily Mail, Robert Jobson, said.
"They have all confirmed that a Regency with Charles taking the lead is now, at the very least, a real possibility."
As someone with Republican tendencies, Charles will do wonders for the Republican movement.
Yes. Support for the royal family will decline rapidly under Charles.
Irrelevant as he will only actually be King for a couple of years before William and Kate take over
He strikes me as the most selfish individual, alive or historical and real or fictional, I have ever heard of. I am pretty certain that when he gets where he wants to be the sceptre will only be priseable from his cold dead fingers.
Now come on. Richard III was a lot worse. At least Charles doesn't go around kidnapping old ladies, and his nephews, or killing senior figures including his brother in law.
And Richard III as portrayed by Shakespeare was worse again.
Edward VIII was the worst.
A Nazi sympathiser and would have played the role of Marshal Pétain if Operation Sea Lion had been successful.
The Queen is preparing to abdicate the throne and make Prince Charles the King, according to royal sources.
Queen Elizabeth, 92, is alleged to have told her inner circle of plans to hang up her crown at the age of 95.
Clarence House is making no comment about 'Plan Regency', which involves a piece of legislation called the Regency Act coming into force.
"I have spoken to a number of high-ranking courtiers who made it clear that preparations for a transition are moving ahead at pace," royal commentator for the Daily Mail, Robert Jobson, said.
"They have all confirmed that a Regency with Charles taking the lead is now, at the very least, a real possibility."
As someone with Republican tendencies, Charles will do wonders for the Republican movement.
Yes. Support for the royal family will decline rapidly under Charles.
Irrelevant as he will only actually be King for a couple of years before William and Kate take over
He strikes me as the most selfish individual, alive or historical and real or fictional, I have ever heard of. I am pretty certain that when he gets where he wants to be the sceptre will only be priseable from his cold dead fingers.
Given the lifespans of his parents, and his grandmother, I suspect Charles might be King for a few decades.
He is already past retirement age and a pensioner and in any case given pensioners are the most pro monarchy and the same age as him there will be enough of them around while he is alive to defeat any Republican movement and then when he dies or abdicates William and Kate can then win over the middle aged and youth vote again
The Queen is preparing to abdicate the throne and make Prince Charles the King, according to royal sources.
Queen Elizabeth, 92, is alleged to have told her inner circle of plans to hang up her crown at the age of 95.
Clarence House is making no comment about 'Plan Regency', which involves a piece of legislation called the Regency Act coming into force.
"I have spoken to a number of high-ranking courtiers who made it clear that preparations for a transition are moving ahead at pace," royal commentator for the Daily Mail, Robert Jobson, said.
"They have all confirmed that a Regency with Charles taking the lead is now, at the very least, a real possibility."
The Queen is preparing to abdicate the throne and make Prince Charles the King, according to royal sources.
Queen Elizabeth, 92, is alleged to have told her inner circle of plans to hang up her crown at the age of 95.
Clarence House is making no comment about 'Plan Regency', which involves a piece of legislation called the Regency Act coming into force.
"I have spoken to a number of high-ranking courtiers who made it clear that preparations for a transition are moving ahead at pace," royal commentator for the Daily Mail, Robert Jobson, said.
"They have all confirmed that a Regency with Charles taking the lead is now, at the very least, a real possibility."
As someone with Republican tendencies, Charles will do wonders for the Republican movement.
Yes. Support for the royal family will decline rapidly under Charles.
Irrelevant as he will only actually be King for a couple of years before William and Kate take over
He strikes me as the most selfish individual, alive or historical and real or fictional, I have ever heard of. I am pretty certain that when he gets where he wants to be the sceptre will only be priseable from his cold dead fingers.
Now come on. Richard III was a lot worse. At least Charles doesn't go around kidnapping old ladies, and his nephews, or killing senior figures including his brother in law.
And Richard III as portrayed by Shakespeare was worse again.
Edward VIII was the worst.
A Nazi sympathiser and would have played the role of Marshal Pétain if Operation Sea Lion had been successful.
He was a nasty piece of work and arguably Baldwin's greatest achievement was to manage to find a way to get rid of him.
The Queen is preparing to abdicate the throne and make Prince Charles the King, according to royal sources.
Queen Elizabeth, 92, is alleged to have told her inner circle of plans to hang up her crown at the age of 95.
Clarence House is making no comment about 'Plan Regency', which involves a piece of legislation called the Regency Act coming into force.
"I have spoken to a number of high-ranking courtiers who made it clear that preparations for a transition are moving ahead at pace," royal commentator for the Daily Mail, Robert Jobson, said.
"They have all confirmed that a Regency with Charles taking the lead is now, at the very least, a real possibility."
As someone with Republican tendencies, Charles will do wonders for the Republican movement.
Yes. Support for the royal family will decline rapidly under Charles.
Irrelevant as he will only actually be King for a couple of years before William and Kate take over
Charles would only be around 70 when he becomes king. He could last for another 15-20 years. Irreparable damage would be done.
Irrelevant as I said because he is a pensioner and has the staunchly pro monarchist pensioner vote on board while he is alive, when he dies and they die the more charismatic and Diana like William and Kate take over anyway
The Queen is preparing to abdicate the throne and make Prince Charles the King, according to royal sources.
Queen Elizabeth, 92, is alleged to have told her inner circle of plans to hang up her crown at the age of 95.
Clarence House is making no comment about 'Plan Regency', which involves a piece of legislation called the Regency Act coming into force.
"I have spoken to a number of high-ranking courtiers who made it clear that preparations for a transition are moving ahead at pace," royal commentator for the Daily Mail, Robert Jobson, said.
"They have all confirmed that a Regency with Charles taking the lead is now, at the very least, a real possibility."
As someone with Republican tendencies, Charles will do wonders for the Republican movement.
Yes. Support for the royal family will decline rapidly under Charles.
Irrelevant as he will only actually be King for a couple of years before William and Kate take over
He strikes me as the most selfish individual, alive or historical and real or fictional, I have ever heard of. I am pretty certain that when he gets where he wants to be the sceptre will only be priseable from his cold dead fingers.
Now come on. Richard III was a lot worse. At least Charles doesn't go around kidnapping old ladies, and his nephews, or killing senior figures including his brother in law.
And Richard III as portrayed by Shakespeare was worse again.
Edward VIII was the worst.
A Nazi sympathiser and would have played the role of Marshal Pétain if Operation Sea Lion had been successful.
Agree with @foxinsoxuk from the previous thread we are heading for US style culture wars. Faisal Islam also mentioned this in a recent article on Sky News' website as well. Seeing reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here only confirms my belief that's what we are heading to.
Then again, PB may not be entirely representative.
Basically it's been about many white people mainly from the south denying black people are equal to them. That is the crux of the matter.
That is certainly one side of the coin; the other side is left-wingers trying to poke right wing and/or religious White Americans in the eye, whenever they can.
As others have said, this is the equivalent of saying that "the West" are always poking Muslims in the eye whenever they can, and that this explains Islamic extremism.
Agree with @foxinsoxuk from the previous thread we are heading for US style culture wars. Faisal Islam also mentioned this in a recent article on Sky News' website as well. Seeing reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here only confirms my belief that's what we are heading to.
Then again, PB may not be entirely representative.
There's a lot of critique of the American zeitgeist going on from people who know no more about the American zeitgeist than I do. Billie Holiday recorded Strange Fruit in 1939, the "strange fruit" being the bodies of lynched black men hanging from Southern magnolia trees. It isn't the case that there was then a blissful interlude of general niceness and interracial harmony rudely terminated by the rise of Trumpery. This is just American business as usual, and the fear that it is now about to cross the Atlantic is overblown.
I don't see what "reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here" you mean, incidentally. You may be diagnosing thoughtcrime to a greater extent than the text will stand.
We really don't have the legacy of racial tension to the same extent. Basically, half the country had to fight the other half before ending slavery. We generally agreed it had been bad. Nor do fundamentalist religions have such a hold on our politics. So we won't see "culture wars" in the same way. The voting differentials between generations are economically driven. Re Charlottesville A democratically elected council voted to sell a statue. A bunch of people not connected to the City decided they didn't like it, organised Online and turned up mob-handed and in many cases armed, resulting in 3 deaths. They are out of order, because if they don't live there it is none of their business. Or am I missing something?
If the anti-protesters hadn't turned up there wouldn't have been a riot and likely wouldn't have been the deaths.
If the Far Right hadn't shown up there would have been no anti-protestors.
Yes, but (a) they have the right to free assembly and (b) there is no evidence I'm aware of they intended to commit acts of violence
The Queen is preparing to abdicate the throne and make Prince Charles the King, according to royal sources.
Queen Elizabeth, 92, is alleged to have told her inner circle of plans to hang up her crown at the age of 95.
Clarence House is making no comment about 'Plan Regency', which involves a piece of legislation called the Regency Act coming into force.
"I have spoken to a number of high-ranking courtiers who made it clear that preparations for a transition are moving ahead at pace," royal commentator for the Daily Mail, Robert Jobson, said.
"They have all confirmed that a Regency with Charles taking the lead is now, at the very least, a real possibility."
As someone with Republican tendencies, Charles will do wonders for the Republican movement.
Yes. Support for the royal family will decline rapidly under Charles.
Irrelevant as he will only actually be King for a couple of years before William and Kate take over
He strikes me as the most selfish individual, alive or historical and real or fictional, I have ever heard of. I am pretty certain that when he gets where he wants to be the sceptre will only be priseable from his cold dead fingers.
Now come on. Richard III was a lot worse. At least Charles doesn't go around kidnapping old ladies, and his nephews, or killing senior figures including his brother in law.
And Richard III as portrayed by Shakespeare was worse again.
Edward VIII was the worst.
A Nazi sympathiser and would have played the role of Marshal Pétain if Operation Sea Lion had been successful.
He was a nasty piece of work and arguably Baldwin's greatest achievement was to manage to find a way to get rid of him.
The Queen is preparing to abdicate the throne and make Prince Charles the King, according to royal sources.
Queen Elizabeth, 92, is alleged to have told her inner circle of plans to hang up her crown at the age of 95.
Clarence House is making no comment about 'Plan Regency', which involves a piece of legislation called the Regency Act coming into force.
"I have spoken to a number of high-ranking courtiers who made it clear that preparations for a transition are moving ahead at pace," royal commentator for the Daily Mail, Robert Jobson, said.
"They have all confirmed that a Regency with Charles taking the lead is now, at the very least, a real possibility."
As someone with Republican tendencies, Charles will do wonders for the Republican movement.
Yes. Support for the royal family will decline rapidly under Charles.
Irrelevant as he will only actually be King for a couple of years before William and Kate take over
Charles would only be around 70 when he becomes king. He could last for another 15-20 years. Irreparable damage would be done.
Irrelevant as I said because he is a pensioner and has the staunchly pro monarchist pensioner vote on board while he is alive, when he dies and they die the more charismatic and Diana like William and Kate take over anyway
The Queen is preparing to abdicate the throne and make Prince Charles the King, according to royal sources.
Queen Elizabeth, 92, is alleged to have told her inner circle of plans to hang up her crown at the age of 95.
Clarence House is making no comment about 'Plan Regency', which involves a piece of legislation called the Regency Act coming into force.
"I have spoken to a number of high-ranking courtiers who made it clear that preparations for a transition are moving ahead at pace," royal commentator for the Daily Mail, Robert Jobson, said.
"They have all confirmed that a Regency with Charles taking the lead is now, at the very least, a real possibility."
As someone with Republican tendencies, Charles will do wonders for the Republican movement.
Yes. Support for the royal family will decline rapidly under Charles.
Irrelevant as he will only actually be King for a couple of years before William and Kate take over
Charles would only be around 70 when he becomes king. He could last for another 15-20 years. Irreparable damage would be done.
Irrelevant as I said because he is a pensioner and has the staunchly pro monarchist pensioner vote on board while he is alive, when he dies and they die the more charismatic and Diana like William and Kate take over anyway
Agree with @foxinsoxuk from the previous thread we are heading for US style culture wars. Faisal Islam also mentioned this in a recent article on Sky News' website as well. Seeing reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here only confirms my belief that's what we are heading to.
Then again, PB may not be entirely representative.
There's a lot of critique of the American zeitgeist going on from people who know no more about the American zeitgeist than I do. Billie Holiday recorded Strange Fruit in 1939, the "strange fruit" being the bodies of lynched black men hanging from Southern magnolia trees. It isn't the case that there was then a blissful interlude of general niceness and interracial harmony rudely terminated by the rise of Trumpery. This is just American business as usual, and the fear that it is now about to cross the Atlantic is overblown.
I don't see what "reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here" you mean, incidentally. You may be diagnosing thoughtcrime to a greater extent than the text will stand.
We really don't have the legacy of racial tension to the same extent. Basically, half the country had to fight the other half before ending slavery. We generally agreed it had been bad. Nor do fundamentalist religions have such a hold on our politics. So we won't see "culture wars" in the same way. The voting differentials between generations are economically driven. Re Charlottesville A democratically elected council voted to sell a statue. A bunch of people not connected to the City decided they didn't like it, organised Online and turned up mob-handed and in many cases armed, resulting in 3 deaths. They are out of order, because if they don't live there it is none of their business. Or am I missing something?
If the anti-protesters hadn't turned up there wouldn't have been a riot and likely wouldn't have been the deaths.
No! The young lady died because some red-neck nazi half -wit drove over her at speed in a 2 tonne Dodge Challenger.
Do you genuinely believe the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the anti-nazi protesters or are you just trolling us?
I don't know "who started" the actual fighting, but I'm going with both are to blame. I very much dislike the rabid "antis" (like the AFL in the UK) who just inflame the situation
Who knows, in the case of the young lady, whether it would have occurred if the march had been peaceful
The Queen is preparing to abdicate the throne and make Prince Charles the King, according to royal sources.
Queen Elizabeth, 92, is alleged to have told her inner circle of plans to hang up her crown at the age of 95.
Clarence House is making no comment about 'Plan Regency', which involves a piece of legislation called the Regency Act coming into force.
"I have spoken to a number of high-ranking courtiers who made it clear that preparations for a transition are moving ahead at pace," royal commentator for the Daily Mail, Robert Jobson, said.
"They have all confirmed that a Regency with Charles taking the lead is now, at the very least, a real possibility."
As someone with Republican tendencies, Charles will do wonders for the Republican movement.
Yes. Support for the royal family will decline rapidly under Charles.
Irrelevant as he will only actually be King for a couple of years before William and Kate take over
He strikes me as the most selfish individual, alive or historical and real or fictional, I have ever heard of. I am pretty certain that when he gets where he wants to be the sceptre will only be priseable from his cold dead fingers.
Now come on. Richard III was a lot worse. At least Charles doesn't go around kidnapping old ladies, and his nephews, or killing senior figures including his brother in law.
And Richard III as portrayed by Shakespeare was worse again.
Edward VIII was the worst.
A Nazi sympathiser and would have played the role of Marshal Pétain if Operation Sea Lion had been successful.
Any statues of him we can tear down?
There's one of him at Aberystwyth University isn't there?
The Queen is preparing to abdicate the throne and make Prince Charles the King, according to royal sources.
Queen Elizabeth, 92, is alleged to have told her inner circle of plans to hang up her crown at the age of 95.
Clarence House is making no comment about 'Plan Regency', which involves a piece of legislation called the Regency Act coming into force.
"I have spoken to a number of high-ranking courtiers who made it clear that preparations for a transition are moving ahead at pace," royal commentator for the Daily Mail, Robert Jobson, said.
"They have all confirmed that a Regency with Charles taking the lead is now, at the very least, a real possibility."
As someone with Republican tendencies, Charles will do wonders for the Republican movement.
Yes. Support for the royal family will decline rapidly under Charles.
Irrelevant as he will only actually be King for a couple of years before William and Kate take over
Charles would only be around 70 when he becomes king. He could last for another 15-20 years. Irreparable damage would be done.
Irrelevant as I said because he is a pensioner and has the staunchly pro monarchist pensioner vote on board while he is alive, when he dies and they die the more charismatic and Diana like William and Kate take over anyway
Agree with @foxinsoxuk from the previous thread we are heading for US style culture wars. Faisal Islam also mentioned this in a recent article on Sky News' website as well. Seeing reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here only confirms my belief that's what we are heading to.
Then again, PB may not be entirely representative.
There's a lot of critique of the American zeitgeist going on from people who know no more about the American zeitgeist than I do. Billie Holiday recorded Strange Fruit in 1939, the "strange fruit" being the bodies of lynched black men hanging from Southern magnolia trees. It isn't the case that there was then a blissful interlude of general niceness and interracial harmony rudely terminated by the rise of Trumpery. This is just American business as usual, and the fear that it is now about to cross the Atlantic is overblown.
I don't see what "reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here" you mean, incidentally. You may be diagnosing thoughtcrime to a greater extent than the text will stand.
We really don't have the legacy of racial tension to the same extent. Basically, half the country had to fight the other half before ending slavery. We generally agreed it had been bad. Nor do fundamentalist religions have such a hold on our politics. So we won't see "culture wars" in the same way. The voting differentials between generations are economically driven. Re Charlottesville A democratically elected council voted to sell a statue. A bunch of people not connected to the City decided they didn't like it, organised Online and turned up mob-handed and in many cases armed, resulting in 3 deaths. They are out of order, because if they don't live there it is none of their business. Or am I missing something?
If the anti-protesters hadn't turned up there wouldn't have been a riot and likely wouldn't have been the deaths.
If the Far Right hadn't shown up there would have been no anti-protestors.
Yes, but (a) they have the right to free assembly and (b) there is no evidence I'm aware of they intended to commit acts of violence
So the KKK and its associates don't have a reputation for industrial scale unpleasantness? You are absolutely on fire today!
Agree with @foxinsoxuk from the previous thread we are heading for US style culture wars. Faisal Islam also mentioned this in a recent article on Sky News' website as well. Seeing reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here only confirms my belief that's what we are heading to.
Then again, PB may not be entirely representative.
There's a lot of critique of the American zeitgeist going on from people who know no more about the American zeitgeist than I do. Billie Holiday recorded Strange Fruit in 1939, the "strange fruit" being the bodies of lynched black men hanging from Southern magnolia trees. It isn't the case that there was then a blissful interlude of general niceness and interracial harmony rudely terminated by the rise of Trumpery. This is just American business as usual, and the fear that it is now about to cross the Atlantic is overblown.
I don't see what "reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here" you mean, incidentally. You may be diagnosing thoughtcrime to a greater extent than the text will stand.
We really don't have the legacy of racial tension to the same extent. Basically, half the country had to fight the other half before ending slavery. We generally agreed it had been bad. Nor do fundamentalist religions have such a hold on our politics. So we won't see "culture wars" in the same way. The voting differentials between generations are economically driven. Re Charlottesville A democratically elected council voted to sell a statue. A bunch of people not connected to the City decided they didn't like it, organised Online and turned up mob-handed and in many cases armed, resulting in 3 deaths. They are out of order, because if they don't live there it is none of their business. Or am I missing something?
If the anti-protesters hadn't turned up there wouldn't have been a riot and likely wouldn't have been the deaths.
If the Far Right hadn't shown up there would have been no anti-protestors.
Yes, but (a) they have the right to free assembly and (b) there is no evidence I'm aware of they intended to commit acts of violence
(a) Could not agree more. (b) The track record of the organisations involved should have suggested the distinct possibility.
Wasn't Edward VIII pretty brutal towards the women he made the beast with two backs early in his life?
That I have no idea. But unless he threatened to lock them in a damp dungeon with no food in midwinter unless they gave him everything they possessed he was still less of a brute than Richard, who was also pretty horrible to his wife.
Re James Chapman: can't believe a former DM political editor is so europhile. I sympathise with a lot of what he's saying though, but bloody hell....
I suspect working with DD caused the scales to fall from his eyes. DD seems to have that effect. I recall Dominic Cummings lambasting DD and the then Tory leader IDS for being more interested in trite gossip surrounding Cherie Blair's flat than vital matters of national importance. Of course, Cummings stuck to the euro-sceptic cause but just dismissed DD and IDS as duds. Perhaps Chapman went a bit further and concluded that euro-scepticism can't be up to much if championed by such an obvious chump.
Agree with @foxinsoxuk from the previous thread we are heading for US style culture wars. Faisal Islam also mentioned this in a recent article on Sky News' website as well. Seeing reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here only confirms my belief that's what we are heading to.
Then again, PB may not be entirely representative.
There's a lot of critique of the American zeitgeist going on from people who know no more about the American zeitgeist than I do. Billie Holiday recorded Strange Fruit in 1939, the "strange fruit" being the bodies of lynched black men hanging from Southern magnolia trees. It isn't the case that there was then a blissful interlude of general niceness and interracial harmony rudely terminated by the rise of Trumpery. This is just American business as usual, and the fear that it is now about to cross the Atlantic is overblown.
I don't see what "reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here" you mean, incidentally. You may be diagnosing thoughtcrime to a greater extent than the text will stand.
We really don't have the legacy of racial tension to the same extent. Basically, half the country had to fight the other half before ending slavery. We generally agreed it had been bad. Nor do fundamentalist religions have such a hold on our politics. So we won't see "culture wars" in the same way. The voting differentials between generations are economically driven. Re Charlottesville A democratically elected council voted to sell a statue. A bunch of people not connected to the City decided they didn't like it, organised Online and turned up mob-handed and in many cases armed, resulting in 3 deaths. They are out of order, because if they don't live there it is none of their business. Or am I missing something?
If the anti-protesters hadn't turned up there wouldn't have been a riot and likely wouldn't have been the deaths.
If the Far Right hadn't shown up there would have been no anti-protestors.
Yes, but (a) they have the right to free assembly and (b) there is no evidence I'm aware of they intended to commit acts of violence
So the KKK and its associates don't have a reputation for industrial scale unpleasantness? You are absolutely on fire today!
I think that is possibly the worst pun I have ever seen on PB.
Wasn't Edward VIII pretty brutal towards the women he made the beast with two backs early in his life?
That I have no idea. But unless he threatened to lock them in a damp dungeon with no food in midwinter unless they gave him everything they possessed he was still less of a brute than Richard, who was also pretty horrible to his wife.
IIRC his father wasn't impressed with son sowing so many wild oats, and Edward used to get all emotional and angry.
I still think Henry Bolingbroke was quite the shit, but what do you expect from a Lancastrian?
Agree with @foxinsoxuk from the previous thread we are heading for US style culture wars. Faisal Islam also mentioned this in a recent article on Sky News' website as well. Seeing reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here only confirms my belief that's what we are heading to.
Then again, PB may not be entirely representative.
There's a lot of critique of the American zeitgeist going on from people who know no more about the American zeitgeist than I do. Billie Holiday recorded Strange Fruit in 1939, the "strange fruit" being the bodies of lynched black men hanging from Southern magnolia trees. It isn't the case that there was then a blissful interlude of general niceness and interracial harmony rudely terminated by the rise of Trumpery. This is just American business as usual, and the fear that it is now about to cross the Atlantic is overblown.
I don't see what "reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here" you mean, incidentally. You may be diagnosing thoughtcrime to a greater extent than the text will stand.
We really don't have the legacy of racial tension to the same extent. Basically, half the country had to fight the other half before ending slavery. We generally agreed it had been bad. Nor do fundamentalist religions have such a hold on our politics. So we won't see "culture wars" in the same way. The voting differentials between generations are economically driven. Re Charlottesville A democratically elected council voted to sell a statue. A bunch of people not connected to the City decided they didn't like it, organised Online and turned up mob-handed and in many cases armed, resulting in 3 deaths. They are out of order, because if they don't live there it is none of their business. Or am I missing something?
If the anti-protesters hadn't turned up there wouldn't have been a riot and likely wouldn't have been the deaths.
No! The young lady died because some red-neck nazi half -wit drove over her at speed in a 2 tonne Dodge Challenger.
Do you genuinely believe the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the anti-nazi protesters or are you just trolling us?
It is not, I suppose, altogether your fault that the distinction between causa causans and causa sine qua non is too difficult for you; some blame must attach to your parents and to the truancy officer at the school you notionally attended. But you mustn't accuse people of trolling just because you do not understand what they are saying.
Agree with @foxinsoxuk from the previous thread we are heading for US style culture wars. Faisal Islam also mentioned this in a recent article on Sky News' website as well. Seeing reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here only confirms my belief that's what we are heading to.
Then again, PB may not be entirely representative.
Faisal makes a good point that those in their thirties were happy to vote for giveaways to the elderly in 2015 under Cameron, but then rebelled in 2017 against May and her Brexit vision.
Agree with @foxinsoxuk from the previous thread we are heading for US style culture wars. Faisal Islam also mentioned this in a recent article on Sky News' website as well. Seeing reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here only confirms my belief that's what we are heading to.
Then again, PB may not be entirely representative.
Faisal makes a good point that those in their thirties were happy to vote for giveaways to the elderly in 2015 under Cameron, but then rebelled in 2017 against May and her Brexit vision.
People in their thirties were also offered free nursery care by Cameron (or rather, their babies/toddlers were).
Agree with @foxinsoxuk from the previous thread we are heading for US style culture wars. Faisal Islam also mentioned this in a recent article on Sky News' website as well. Seeing reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here only confirms my belief that's what we are heading to.
Then again, PB may not be entirely representative.
Faisal makes a good point that those in their thirties were happy to vote for giveaways to the elderly in 2015 under Cameron, but then rebelled in 2017 against May and her Brexit vision.
People in their thirties were also offered free nursery care by Cameron (or rather, their babies/toddlers were).
The Conservatives' manifesto in 2015 offered things to the voters. The one in 2017 offered them nothing.
One can say that approach was either brave or suicidal.
The Queen is preparing to abdicate the throne and make Prince Charles the King, according to royal sources.
Queen Elizabeth, 92, is alleged to have told her inner circle of plans to hang up her crown at the age of 95.
Clarence House is making no comment about 'Plan Regency', which involves a piece of legislation called the Regency Act coming into force.
"I have spoken to a number of high-ranking courtiers who made it clear that preparations for a transition are moving ahead at pace," royal commentator for the Daily Mail, Robert Jobson, said.
"They have all confirmed that a Regency with Charles taking the lead is now, at the very least, a real possibility."
As someone with Republican tendencies, Charles will do wonders for the Republican movement.
Yes. Support for the royal family will decline rapidly under Charles.
Irrelevant as he will only actually be King for a couple of years before William and Kate take over
Charles would only be around 70 when he becomes king. He could last for another 15-20 years. Irreparable damage would be done.
Irrelevant as I said because he is a pensioner and has the staunchly pro monarchist pensioner vote on board while he is alive, when he dies and they die the more charismatic and Diana like William and Kate take over anyway
Kate is no Diana. Not even close.
William and Harry have inherited her genes though and she is very sharp and cunning, remember Prince George will be a combination of Middleton and Spencer and only a 1/4 Windsor
Re James Chapman: can't believe a former DM political editor is so europhile. I sympathise with a lot of what he's saying though, but bloody hell....
I suspect working with DD caused the scales to fall from his eyes. DD seems to have that effect. I recall Dominic Cummings lambasting DD and the then Tory leader IDS for being more interested in trite gossip surrounding Cherie Blair's flat than vital matters of national importance. Of course, Cummings stuck to the euro-sceptic cause but just dismissed DD and IDS as duds. Perhaps Chapman went a bit further and concluded that euro-scepticism can't be up to much if championed by such an obvious chump.
Dominic Cummings managed the unique feat of being loathed by Davis, IDS and Cameron in equal measure
Agree with @foxinsoxuk from the previous thread we are heading for US style culture wars. Faisal Islam also mentioned this in a recent article on Sky News' website as well. Seeing reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here only confirms my belief that's what we are heading to.
Then again, PB may not be entirely representative.
Faisal makes a good point that those in their thirties were happy to vote for giveaways to the elderly in 2015 under Cameron, but then rebelled in 2017 against May and her Brexit vision.
People in their thirties were also offered free nursery care by Cameron (or rather, their babies/toddlers were).
The Conservatives' manifesto in 2015 offered things to the voters. The one in 2017 offered them nothing.
One can say that approach was either brave or suicidal.
I think it was definitely courageous - in a Sir Humphrey sense.
And with that, I am off to bed. Good night, everyone.
The Queen is preparing to abdicate the throne and make Prince Charles the King, according to royal sources.
Queen Elizabeth, 92, is alleged to have told her inner circle of plans to hang up her crown at the age of 95.
Clarence House is making no comment about 'Plan Regency', which involves a piece of legislation called the Regency Act coming into force.
"I have spoken to a number of high-ranking courtiers who made it clear that preparations for a transition are moving ahead at pace," royal commentator for the Daily Mail, Robert Jobson, said.
"They have all confirmed that a Regency with Charles taking the lead is now, at the very least, a real possibility."
As someone with Republican tendencies, Charles will do wonders for the Republican movement.
Yes. Support for the royal family will decline rapidly under Charles.
Irrelevant as he will only actually be King for a couple of years before William and Kate take over
Charles would only be around 70 when he becomes king. He could last for another 15-20 years. Irreparable damage would be done.
Irrelevant as I said because he is a pensioner and has the staunchly pro monarchist pensioner vote on board while he is alive, when he dies and they die the more charismatic and Diana like William and Kate take over anyway
Kate is no Diana. Not even close.
William and Harry have inherited her genes though and she is very sharp and cunning, remember Prince George will be a combination of Middleton and Spencer and only a 1/4 Windsor
He won't have the marginal cosanguinuity of his grandparents patriarchal line:}
Agree with @foxinsoxuk from the previous thread we are heading for US style culture wars. Faisal Islam also mentioned this in a recent article on Sky News' website as well. Seeing reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here only confirms my belief that's what we are heading to.
Then again, PB may not be entirely representative.
There's a lot of critique of the American zeitgeist going on from people who know no more about the American zeitgeist than I do. Billie Holiday recorded Strange Fruit in 1939, the "strange fruit" being the bodies of lynched black men hanging from Southern magnolia trees. It isn't the case that there was then a blissful interlude of general niceness and interracial harmony rudely terminated by the rise of Trumpery. This is just American business as usual, and the fear that it is now about to cross the Atlantic is overblown.
I don't see what "reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here" you mean, incidentally. You may be diagnosing thoughtcrime to a greater extent than the text will stand.
We really don't have the legacy of racial tension to the same extent. Basically, half the country had to fight the other half before ending slavery. We generally agreed it had been bad. Nor do fundamentalist religions have such a hold on our politics. So we won't see "culture wars" in the same way. The voting differentials between generations are economically driven. Re Charlottesville A democratically elected council voted to sell a statue. A bunch of people not connected to the City decided they didn't like it, organised Online and turned up mob-handed and in many cases armed, resulting in 3 deaths. They are out of order, because if they don't live there it is none of their business. Or am I missing something?
If the anti-protesters hadn't turned up there wouldn't have been a riot and likely wouldn't have been the deaths.
If the Far Right hadn't shown up there would have been no anti-protestors.
Yes, but (a) they have the right to free assembly and (b) there is no evidence I'm aware of they intended to commit acts of violence
So the KKK and its associates don't have a reputation for industrial scale unpleasantness? You are absolutely on fire today!
I think that is possibly the worst pun I have ever seen on PB.
@MrHarryCole: Tory unity latest. Minister brands Rees Mogg "cross between Little Lord fauntleroy + Mr Bean. Both fiction & so are his chances of being PM"
You may have a point about my rudimentary education, as I am struggling to make head or tail of what on earth you are talking about.
I suspect you are suggesting that it was OK for the Nazis to lawfully march on Charlottesville, but it was not OK for the Anti-Nazis to lawfully object as that was confrontational and it upset the Nazis. The result was one of them felt so justifiably outraged that he had to drive his car through the crowd of annoying Anti- Nazis. Yep! It was the young lady's fault she got mowed down by a ****-wit. I think I have it now!
You may have a point about my rudimentary education, as I am struggling to make head or tail of what on earth you are talking about.
I suspect you are suggesting that it was OK for the Nazis to lawfully march on Charlottesville, but it was not OK for the Anti-Nazis to lawfully object as that was confrontational and it upset the Nazis. The result was one of them felt so justifiably outraged that he had to drive his car through the crowd of annoying Anti- Nazis. Yep! It was the young lady's fault she got mowed down by a ****-wit. I think I have it now!
You have to remember that white Republican males are oppressed. They need special protection. Great twitter thread to follow.
Agree with @foxinsoxuk from the previous thread we are heading for US style culture wars. Faisal Islam also mentioned this in a recent article on Sky News' website as well. Seeing reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here only confirms my belief that's what we are heading to.
Then again, PB may not be entirely representative.
There's a lot of critique of the American zeitgeist going on from people who know no more about the American zeitgeist than I do. Billie Holiday recorded Strange Fruit in 1939, the "strange fruit" being the bodies of lynched black men hanging from Southern magnolia trees. It isn't the case that there was then a blissful interlude of general niceness and interracial harmony rudely terminated by the rise of Trumpery. This is just American business as usual, and the fear that it is now about to cross the Atlantic is overblown.
I don't see what "reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here" you mean, incidentally. You may be diagnosing thoughtcrime to a greater extent than the text will stand.
We really don't have the legacy of racial tension to the same extent. Basically, half the country had to fight the other half before ending slavery. We generally agreed it had been bad. Nor do fundamentalist religions have such a hold on our politics. So we won't see "culture wars" in the same way. The voting differentials between generations are economically driven. Re Charlottesville A democratically elected council voted to sell a statue. A bunch of people not connected to the City decided they didn't like it, organised Online and turned up mob-handed and in many cases armed, resulting in 3 deaths. They are out of order, because if they don't live there it is none of their business. Or am I missing something?
If the anti-protesters hadn't turned up there wouldn't have been a riot and likely wouldn't have been the deaths.
If the Far Right hadn't shown up there would have been no anti-protestors.
Yes, but (a) they have the right to free assembly and (b) there is no evidence I'm aware of they intended to commit acts of violence
So the KKK and its associates don't have a reputation for industrial scale unpleasantness? You are absolutely on fire today!
Of course they do. But that isn't a criminal offence.
@MrHarryCole: Tory unity latest. Minister brands Rees Mogg "cross between Little Lord fauntleroy + Mr Bean. Both fiction & so are his chances of being PM"
Always reminds me of Dennis the Menace's nemesis, Walter the Softie.
Agree with @foxinsoxuk from the previous thread we are heading for US style culture wars. Faisal Islam also mentioned this in a recent article on Sky News' website as well. Seeing reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here only confirms my belief that's what we are heading to.
Then again, PB may not be entirely representative.
There's a lot of critique of the American zeitgeist going on from people who know no more about the American zeitgeist than I do. Billie Holiday recorded Strange Fruit in 1939, the "strange fruit" being the bodies of lynched black men hanging from Southern magnolia trees. It isn't the case that there was then a blissful interlude of general niceness and interracial harmony rudely terminated by the rise of Trumpery. This is just American business as usual, and the fear that it is now about to cross the Atlantic is overblown.
I don't see what "reactions to what happened in Charlottesville on here" you mean, incidentally. You may be diagnosing thoughtcrime to a greater extent than the text will stand.
Re Charlottesville A democratically elected council voted to sell a statue. A bunch of people not connected to the City decided they didn't like it, organised Online and turned up mob-handed and in many cases armed, resulting in 3 deaths. They are out of order, because if they don't live there it is none of their business. Or am I missing something?
If the anti-protesters hadn't turned up there wouldn't have been a riot and likely wouldn't have been the deaths.
If the Far Right hadn't shown up there would have been no anti-protestors.
Yes, but (a) they have the right to free assembly and (b) there is no evidence I'm aware of they intended to commit acts of violence
(a) Could not agree more. (b) The track record of the organisations involved should have suggested the distinct possibility.
(B) yes and I am sure the police were rightly prepared for trouble. But it certainly was not helped by the presence of counter demonstrators. Sone of the media reports I've seen (don't know if they are accurate) state the marchers had to "fight they way into the park". While not right, that does suggest an attempt to interfere with their right to protest, and probably a physical attempt to do so
By industrial scale unpleasantness I think I was probably alluding to activities that are illegal in statute, although in some courts in the USA a jury may disagree.
You may have a point about my rudimentary education, as I am struggling to make head or tail of what on earth you are talking about.
I suspect you are suggesting that it was OK for the Nazis to lawfully march on Charlottesville, but it was not OK for the Anti-Nazis to lawfully object as that was confrontational and it upset the Nazis. The result was one of them felt so justifiably outraged that he had to drive his car through the crowd of annoying Anti- Nazis. Yep! It was the young lady's fault she got mowed down by a ****-wit. I think I have it now!
1. It was ok for the protesters, some of whom may have been Nazis and many of whom were most likely deeply unpleasant, to protest
2. While legal, it was inflammatory of the antis to protest in person
3. I have no idea who started the fight but once it became a general brawl both sides were culpable
4. As for the murder, I don't know whether the individual came from Phio intending to do was he did or whether it was a crime of passion (the fact that the DA has gone for second degree murder suggests a lack of evidence of intention). However he clearly bears sole responsibility for his actions
5. What we can say, though, is that in inflaming the situation the antis contributed to the circumstances in which this awful crime happened, so they have a degree of indirect culpability
Basically turning up to shout aggressively at a bunch of thick tattooed blokes on steroids is unlikely to promote peace and harmony. If you tried that in my local you'd deserve everything you got
By industrial scale unpleasantness I think I was probably alluding to activities that are illegal in statute, although in some courts in the USA a jury may disagree.
The organisation may be, but not nevesssrily the individuals
You may have a point about my rudimentary education, as I am struggling to make head or tail of what on earth you are talking about.
I suspect you are suggesting that it was OK for the Nazis to lawfully march on Charlottesville, but it was not OK for the Anti-Nazis to lawfully object as that was confrontational and it upset the Nazis. The result was one of them felt so justifiably outraged that he had to drive his car through the crowd of annoying Anti- Nazis. Yep! It was the young lady's fault she got mowed down by a ****-wit. I think I have it now!
4. As for the murder, I don't know whether the individual came from Phio intending to do was he did or whether it was a crime of passion (the fact that the DA has gone for second degree murder suggests a lack of evidence of intention). However he clearly bears sole responsibility for his actions
He passionately decided to accelerate down a crowded street.
Sure.
Still plenty of time for that second degree to get upgraded.
You may have a point about my rudimentary education, as I am struggling to make head or tail of what on earth you are talking about.
I suspect you are suggesting that it was OK for the Nazis to lawfully march on Charlottesville, but it was not OK for the Anti-Nazis to lawfully object as that was confrontational and it upset the Nazis. The result was one of them felt so justifiably outraged that he had to drive his car through the crowd of annoying Anti- Nazis. Yep! It was the young lady's fault she got mowed down by a ****-wit. I think I have it now!
1. It was ok for the protesters, some of whom may have been Nazis and many of whom were most likely deeply unpleasant, to protest
2. While legal, it was inflammatory of the antis to protest in person
3. I have no idea who started the fight but once it became a general brawl both sides were culpable
4. As for the murder, I don't know whether the individual came from Phio intending to do was he did or whether it was a crime of passion (the fact that the DA has gone for second degree murder suggests a lack of evidence of intention). However he clearly bears sole responsibility for his actions
5. What we can say, though, is that in inflaming the situation the antis contributed to the circumstances in which this awful crime happened, so they have a degree of indirect culpability
Basically turning up to shout aggressively at a bunch of thick tattooed blokes on steroids is unlikely to promote peace and harmony. If you tried that in my local you'd deserve everything you got
Impressive to go from "he clearly bears sole responsibility" to you'd deserve everything you got in just one bullet point.
You may have a point about my rudimentary education, as I am struggling to make head or tail of what on earth you are talking about.
I suspect you are suggesting that it was OK for the Nazis to lawfully march on Charlottesville, but it was not OK for the Anti-Nazis to lawfully object as that was confrontational and it upset the Nazis. The result was one of them felt so justifiably outraged that he had to drive his car through the crowd of annoying Anti- Nazis. Yep! It was the young lady's fault she got mowed down by a ****-wit. I think I have it now!
1. It was ok for the protesters, some of whom may have been Nazis and many of whom were most likely deeply unpleasant, to protest
2. While legal, it was inflammatory of the antis to protest in person
3. I have no idea who started the fight but once it became a general brawl both sides were culpable
4. As for the murder, I don't know whether the individual came from Phio intending to do was he did or whether it was a crime of passion (the fact that the DA has gone for second degree murder suggests a lack of evidence of intention). However he clearly bears sole responsibility for his actions
5. What we can say, though, is that in inflaming the situation the antis contributed to the circumstances in which this awful crime happened, so they have a degree of indirect culpability
Basically turning up to shout aggressively at a bunch of thick tattooed blokes on steroids is unlikely to promote peace and harmony. If you tried that in my local you'd deserve everything you got
Impressive to go from "he clearly bears sole responsibility" to you'd deserve everything you got in just one bullet point.
Direct responsibility vs indirect culpability. Big difference.
He should go to prison. They shouldn't. But they should consider whether their presence in some way contributed to this senseless killing
You may have a point about my rudimentary education, as I am struggling to make head or tail of what on earth you are talking about.
I suspect you are suggesting that it was OK for the Nazis to lawfully march on Charlottesville, but it was not OK for the Anti-Nazis to lawfully object as that was confrontational and it upset the Nazis. The result was one of them felt so justifiably outraged that he had to drive his car through the crowd of annoying Anti- Nazis. Yep! It was the young lady's fault she got mowed down by a ****-wit. I think I have it now!
1. It was ok for the protesters, some of whom may have been Nazis and many of whom were most likely deeply unpleasant, to protest
2. While legal, it was inflammatory of the antis to protest in person
3. I have no idea who started the fight but once it became a general brawl both sides were culpable
4. As for the murder, I don't know whether the individual came from Phio intending to do was he did or whether it was a crime of passion (the fact that the DA has gone for second degree murder suggests a lack of evidence of intention). However he clearly bears sole responsibility for his actions
5. What we can say, though, is that in inflaming the situation the antis contributed to the circumstances in which this awful crime happened, so they have a degree of indirect culpability
Basically turning up to shout aggressively at a bunch of thick tattooed blokes on steroids is unlikely to promote peace and harmony. If you tried that in my local you'd deserve everything you got
Impressive to go from "he clearly bears sole responsibility" to you'd deserve everything you got in just one bullet point.
I think it's odd Charles's local is populated by Nazis.
(B) yes and I am sure the police were rightly prepared for trouble. But it certainly was not helped by the presence of counter demonstrators. Sone of the media reports I've seen (don't know if they are accurate) state the marchers had to "fight they way into the park". While not right, that does suggest an attempt to interfere with their right to protest, and probably a physical attempt to do so
Charles, we shall have to disagree on this one. However, my original point that this was a democratic vote by a lawfully elected Council still stands. It really ought not to have come to any of this.
You may have a point about my rudimentary education, as I am struggling to make head or tail of what on earth you are talking about.
I suspect you are suggesting that it was OK for the Nazis to lawfully march on Charlottesville, but it was not OK for the Anti-Nazis to lawfully object as that was confrontational and it upset the Nazis. The result was one of them felt so justifiably outraged that he had to drive his car through the crowd of annoying Anti- Nazis. Yep! It was the young lady's fault she got mowed down by a ****-wit. I think I have it now!
1. It was ok for the protesters, some of whom may have been Nazis and many of whom were most likely deeply unpleasant, to protest
2. While legal, it was inflammatory of the antis to protest in person
3. I have no idea who started the fight but once it became a general brawl both sides were culpable
4. As for the murder, I don't know whether the individual came from Phio intending to do was he did or whether it was a crime of passion (the fact that the DA has gone for second degree murder suggests a lack of evidence of intention). However he clearly bears sole responsibility for his actions
5. What we can say, though, is that in inflaming the situation the antis contributed to the circumstances in which this awful crime happened, so they have a degree of indirect culpability
Basically turning up to shout aggressively at a bunch of thick tattooed blokes on steroids is unlikely to promote peace and harmony. If you tried that in my local you'd deserve everything you got
Due to my inferior education and intellect to your own I am still finding it difficult to agree with your rationale.
From a simpleton's point of view I will help you out with how I see the issue. Fascists (KKK, Nazis, call them what you like) have some pretty controversial views. I think it is wholly proper that people who disagree with those views make efforts to counter them so that people who have previously only been furnished with the fascist viewpoint can weigh up the alternative. If the fascists then get a bit uppity about that alternative view being promoted, and they decide to kill and maim their opposers, the culpability is wholly with the fascists.
By industrial scale unpleasantness I think I was probably alluding to activities that are illegal in statute, although in some courts in the USA a jury may disagree.
The organisation may be, but not nevesssrily the individuals
You may have a point about my rudimentary education, as I am struggling to make head or tail of what on earth you are talking about.
I suspect you are suggesting that it was OK for the Nazis to lawfully march on Charlottesville, but it was not OK for the Anti-Nazis to lawfully object as that was confrontational and it upset the Nazis. The result was one of them felt so justifiably outraged that he had to drive his car through the crowd of annoying Anti- Nazis. Yep! It was the young lady's fault she got mowed down by a ****-wit. I think I have it now!
1. It was ok for the protesters, some of whom may have been Nazis and many of whom were most likely deeply unpleasant, to protest
2. While legal, it was inflammatory of the antis to protest in person
3. I have no idea who started the fight but once it became a general brawl both sides were culpable
4. As for the murder, I don't know whether the individual came from Phio intending to do was he did or whether it was a crime of passion (the fact that the DA has gone for second degree murder suggests a lack of evidence of intention). However he clearly bears sole responsibility for his actions
5. What we can say, though, is that in inflaming the situation the antis contributed to the circumstances in which this awful crime happened, so they have a degree of indirect culpability
Basically turning up to shout aggressively at a bunch of thick tattooed blokes on steroids is unlikely to promote peace and harmony. If you tried that in my local you'd deserve everything you got
Due to my inferior education and intellect to your own I am still finding it difficult to agree with your rationale.
From a simpleton's point of view I will help you out with how I see the issue. Fascists (KKK, Nazis, call them what you like) have some pretty controversial views. I think it is wholly proper that people who disagree with those views make efforts to counter them so that people who have previously only been furnished with the fascist viewpoint can weigh up the alternative. If the fascists then get a bit uppity about that alternative view being promoted, and they decide to kill and maim their opposers, the culpability is wholly with the fascists.
Simple really!
Debate with them. Defeat their arguments. Turning up and calling them Nazis doesn't help.
You may have a point about my rudimentary education, as I am struggling to make head or tail of what on earth you are talking about.
I suspect you are suggesting that it was OK for the Nazis to lawfully march on Charlottesville, but it was not OK for the Anti-Nazis to lawfully object as that was confrontational and it upset the Nazis. The result was one of them felt so justifiably outraged that he had to drive his car through the crowd of annoying Anti- Nazis. Yep! It was the young lady's fault she got mowed down by a ****-wit. I think I have it now!
1. It was ok for the protesters, some of whom may have been Nazis and many of whom were most likely deeply unpleasant, to protest
2. While legal, it was inflammatory of the antis to protest in person
3. I have no idea who started the fight but once it became a general brawl both sides were culpable
4. As for the murder, I don't know whether the individual came from Phio intending to do was he did or whether it was a crime of passion (the fact that the DA has gone for second degree murder suggests a lack of evidence of intention). However he clearly bears sole responsibility for his actions
5. What we can say, though, is that in inflaming the situation the antis contributed to the circumstances in which this awful crime happened, so they have a degree of indirect culpability
Basically turning up to shout aggressively at a bunch of thick tattooed blokes on steroids is unlikely to promote peace and harmony. If you tried that in my local you'd deserve everything you got
Due to my inferior education and intellect to your own I am still finding it difficult to agree with your rationale.
From a simpleton's point of view I will help you out with how I see the issue. Fascists (KKK, Nazis, call them what you like) have some pretty controversial views. I think it is wholly proper that people who disagree with those views make efforts to counter them so that people who have previously only been furnished with the fascist viewpoint can weigh up the alternative. If the fascists then get a bit uppity about that alternative view being promoted, and they decide to kill and maim their opposers, the culpability is wholly with the fascists.
Simple really!
Debate with them. Defeat their arguments. Turning up and calling them Nazis doesn't help.
Simple really
Perhaps we can at least agree that people carrying Nazi flags and wearing Hitler T shirts may reasonably be described as Nazis?
You may have a point about my rudimentary education, as I am struggling to make head or tail of what on earth you are talking about.
I suspect you are suggesting that it was OK for the Nazis to lawfully march on Charlottesville, but it was not OK for the Anti-Nazis to lawfully object as that was confrontational and it upset the Nazis. The result was one of them felt so justifiably outraged that he had to drive his car through the crowd of annoying Anti- Nazis. Yep! It was the young lady's fault she got mowed down by a ****-wit. I think I have it now!
4. As for the murder, I don't know whether the individual came from Phio intending to do was he did or whether it was a crime of passion (the fact that the DA has gone for second degree murder suggests a lack of evidence of intention). However he clearly bears sole responsibility for his actions
He passionately decided to accelerate down a crowded street.
Sure.
Still plenty of time for that second degree to get upgraded.
You may have a point about my rudimentary education, as I am struggling to make head or tail of what on earth you are talking about.
I suspect you are suggesting that it was OK for the Nazis to lawfully march on Charlottesville, but it was not OK for the Anti-Nazis to lawfully object as that was confrontational and it upset the Nazis. The result was one of them felt so justifiably outraged that he had to drive his car through the crowd of annoying Anti- Nazis. Yep! It was the young lady's fault she got mowed down by a ****-wit. I think I have it now!
1. It was ok for the protesters, some of whom may have been Nazis and many of whom were most likely deeply unpleasant, to protest
2. While legal, it was inflammatory of the antis to protest in person
3. I have no idea who started the fight but once it became a general brawl both sides were culpable
4. As for the murder, I don't know whether the individual came from Phio intending to do was he did or whether it was a crime of passion (the fact that the DA has gone for second degree murder suggests a lack of evidence of intention). However he clearly bears sole responsibility for his actions
5. What we can say, though, is that in inflaming the situation the antis contributed to the circumstances in which this awful crime happened, so they have a degree of indirect culpability
Basically turning up to shout aggressively at a bunch of thick tattooed blokes on steroids is unlikely to promote peace and harmony. If you tried that in my local you'd deserve everything you got
Due to my inferior education and intellect to your own I am still finding it difficult to agree with your rationale.
From a simpleton's point of view I will help you out with how I see the issue. Fascists (KKK, Nazis, call them what you like) have some pretty controversial views. I think it is wholly proper that people who disagree with those views make efforts to counter them so that people who have previously only been furnished with the fascist viewpoint can weigh up the alternative. If the fascists then get a bit uppity about that alternative view being promoted, and they decide to kill and maim their opposers, the culpability is wholly with the fascists.
Simple really!
Debate with them. Defeat their arguments. Turning up and calling them Nazis doesn't help.
Simple really
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." Martin Niemöller
Johnson the best equipped? Frightening. But I'm not sure he is capable of it now, even if maybe a few years ago; his stock has fallen, and so what he could sell.
I suspect you are suggesting that it was OK for the Nazis to lawfully march on Charlottesville, but it was not OK for the Anti-Nazis to lawfully object as that was confrontational and it upset the Nazis. The result was one of them felt so justifiably outraged that he had to drive his car through the crowd of annoying Anti- Nazis. Yep! It was the young lady's fault she got mowed down by a ****-wit. I think I have it now!
1. It was ok for the protesters, some of whom may have been Nazis and many of whom were most likely deeply unpleasant, to protest
2. While legal, it was inflammatory of the antis to protest in person
3. I have no idea who started the fight but once it became a general brawl both sides were culpable
4. As for the murder, I don't know whether the individual came from Phio intending to do was he did or whether it was a crime of passion (the fact that the DA has gone for second degree murder suggests a lack of evidence of intention). However he clearly bears sole responsibility for his actions
5. What we can say, though, is that in inflaming the situation the antis contributed to the circumstances in which this awful crime happened, so they have a degree of indirect culpability
Basically turning up to shout aggressively at a bunch of thick tattooed blokes on steroids is unlikely to promote peace and harmony. If you tried that in my local you'd deserve everything you got
Due to my inferior education and intellect to your own I am still finding it difficult to agree with your rationale.
From a simpleton's point of view I will help you out with how I see the issue. Fascists (KKK, Nazis, call them what you like) have some pretty controversial views. I think it is wholly proper that people who disagree with those views make efforts to counter them so that people who have previously only been furnished with the fascist viewpoint can weigh up the alternative. If the fascists then get a bit uppity about that alternative view being promoted, and they decide to kill and maim their opposers, the culpability is wholly with the fascists.
Simple really!
Debate with them. Defeat their arguments. Turning up and calling them Nazis doesn't help.
Simple really
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." Martin Niemöller
You may have a point about my rudimentary education, as I am struggling to make head or tail of what on earth you are talking about.
I suspect you are suggesting that it was OK for the Nazis to lawfully march on Charlottesville, but it was not OK for the Anti-Nazis to lawfully object as that was confrontational and it upset the Nazis. The result was one of them felt so justifiably outraged that he had to drive his car through the crowd of annoying Anti- Nazis. Yep! It was the young lady's fault she got mowed down by a ****-wit. I think I have it now!
4. As for the murder, I don't know whether the individual came from Phio intending to do was he did or whether it was a crime of passion (the fact that the DA has gone for second degree murder suggests a lack of evidence of intention). However he clearly bears sole responsibility for his actions
He passionately decided to accelerate down a crowded street.
Sure.
Still plenty of time for that second degree to get upgraded.
'Crime of passion'?
FFS.
The crowd that were attacked were marching away from the controversial statue at the time.
Comments
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Mountain
Do you genuinely believe the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the anti-nazi protesters or are you just trolling us?
symbols mean different things fior different people
it's the same with the England flag
just becuase some intolerant wanky lefty decides someone elses symbol of identity isnt to their liking is no reason to ban it.
I dont like the french tricloour, thats no reason to ban it.
Rushmore on the other hand would be an operation comparable in size to this one. Admittedly that turned out to be technically quite simple in the end, but I believe Rushmore is harder rock and reinforced with concrete.
Thinking it over, logic would also dictate getting rid of all four. Washington and Jefferson were slaveholders and Jefferson was also a serial rapist of one of his slaves. Lincoln was a racist who only picked up abolition in a big way as a partisan gesture to help in the Civil War (it is ironic to reflect the first draft of the Thirteenth Amendment guaranteed the protection of slavery). Roosevelt was a hero of the Spanish American war and crushed the last Phillipine opposition by shooting its leaders.
They are all heroes with feet of clay. Get rid of the lot!
And Richard III as portrayed by Shakespeare was worse again.
Charles doesn't smoke though.
A Nazi sympathiser and would have played the role of Marshal Pétain if Operation Sea Lion had been successful.
But he didn't beat up old ladies to steal their money so far as I know.
Think we now know where all those damaging front page leaks came from a few months ago,;)
Who knows, in the case of the young lady, whether it would have occurred if the march had been peaceful
(b) The track record of the organisations involved should have suggested the distinct possibility.
Or was the final consonant dispensed with?
I still think Henry Bolingbroke was quite the shit, but what do you expect from a Lancastrian?
Diana on the other hand...
Faisal makes a good point that those in their thirties were happy to vote for giveaways to the elderly in 2015 under Cameron, but then rebelled in 2017 against May and her Brexit vision.
One can say that approach was either brave or suicidal.
And with that, I am off to bed. Good night, everyone.
You may have a point about my rudimentary education, as I am struggling to make head or tail of what on earth you are talking about.
I suspect you are suggesting that it was OK for the Nazis to lawfully march on Charlottesville, but it was not OK for the Anti-Nazis to lawfully object as that was confrontational and it upset the Nazis. The result was one of them felt so justifiably outraged that he had to drive his car through the crowd of annoying Anti- Nazis. Yep! It was the young lady's fault she got mowed down by a ****-wit. I think I have it now!
https://twitter.com/letsgomathias/status/896361902804267009
https://twitter.com/JuliusGoat/status/896326301832925184
By industrial scale unpleasantness I think I was probably alluding to activities that are illegal in statute, although in some courts in the USA a jury may disagree.
"the initial violence, the bulk of the violence, and the most serious violence was all on one side."
Obviously this will convince no one on here but thought I'd share it anyway.
2. While legal, it was inflammatory of the antis to protest in person
3. I have no idea who started the fight but once it became a general brawl both sides were culpable
4. As for the murder, I don't know whether the individual came from Phio intending to do was he did or whether it was a crime of passion (the fact that the DA has gone for second degree murder suggests a lack of evidence of intention). However he clearly bears sole responsibility for his actions
5. What we can say, though, is that in inflaming the situation the antis contributed to the circumstances in which this awful crime happened, so they have a degree of indirect culpability
Basically turning up to shout aggressively at a bunch of thick tattooed blokes on steroids is unlikely to promote peace and harmony. If you tried that in my local you'd deserve everything you got
Fit their prejudice? Check
Smug punchline? Check
Fake news? Check
Gina Miller esque
https://twitter.com/skipsterxx/status/896680114179756032
Sure.
Still plenty of time for that second degree to get upgraded.
He should go to prison. They shouldn't. But they should consider whether their presence in some way contributed to this senseless killing
(B) yes and I am sure the police were rightly prepared for trouble. But it certainly was not helped by the presence of counter demonstrators. Sone of the media reports I've seen (don't know if they are accurate) state the marchers had to "fight they way into the park". While not right, that does suggest an attempt to interfere with their right to protest, and probably a physical attempt to do so
Charles, we shall have to disagree on this one. However, my original point that this was a democratic vote by a lawfully elected Council still stands. It really ought not to have come to any of this.
From a simpleton's point of view I will help you out with how I see the issue. Fascists (KKK, Nazis, call them what you like) have some pretty controversial views. I think it is wholly proper that people who disagree with those views make efforts to counter them so that people who have previously only been furnished with the fascist viewpoint can weigh up the alternative. If the fascists then get a bit uppity about that alternative view being promoted, and they decide to kill and maim their opposers, the culpability is wholly with the fascists.
Simple really!
https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/896830932124041217
https://twitter.com/bjennings90/status/896833463998984192
Interestingly, my replacement as Exalted Cyclops is a black man. We're much more inclusive these days.
Simple really
FFS.
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
Martin Niemöller
Sounds like Farage and Wigmore will be done up like Kippers.
Anyway, Boris is unimportant. The true story of the day is Clarks Shoes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40916607
It is such an ugly shoe....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/13/exclusive-cut-stamp-duty-now-says-jacob-rees-mogg-reveals-vision/