In my defence the tweet was from the editor of Channel 4 news quoting the head of the Medicines Regulatory Authority!
These are Brexit issues that require some sort of Transition preparation. I suspect the action will be to go to WTO at the end of Transition in 2020, with 2 years to plan for this, and for hard borders everywhere.
I was about to launch into my Channel 4 News = Guardian TV spiel, but actually in this case I think the chap is not at fault for what he said*. Rawlins is quoted elsewhere as saying that no insulin is made in the UK. Actually, here's the link to the original interview:
* That said, the C4 News chap has made no attempt to correct the misconception that he has helped to promulgate, either. It would not have been difficult to do so. Links to the websites of UK-based Insulin manufacturers can easily be found using a search engine.
Channel 4 Fake-News, tsk tsk.
Well up to a point. That insulin can be made on this island is a simple technical fact, but I can understand why people not in the business wouldn't know that is the case. It isn't even that surprising that a regulator wouldn't know the details.
That we are talking about the consequences of a major potential disruption to the flow of goods is still a pretty good demonstration that the way Brexit is being pursued is grossly incompetent.
Did not Charles say something about this the other day, and it has to do with different sorts of insulin made here and abroad? ETA: apologies in advance if I've completely garbled this; the search function does not work.
There's a search function?
From the Vanilla interface, but it is broken.
Ah right, I never use the Vanilla interface - I could never work out how to show the most recent posts at the top. I got fed up of repeatedly paging through inane babble (a lot of it mine! )
It’s no use. Historical facts are irrelevant to the Jezziah, other than the ones he’s learnt from his Ladybird Book on Why Israel is Bad and Wrong about Everything.
He also seems to think, wrongly, that he’s the only one on here who cares about the Palestinians despite a number of other posters saying expressly that they would like the Palestinians to have a state of their own. And then he also says that he has no animus against Israel, doesn’t want it to disappear or any Jews expelled but seems completely oblivious to the incompatibility of that ambition with the stated aims of the current Palestinian leadership.
What I really like though is his so-called analogy with Muslims or Saudi Arabians invading Southern England which is almost endearing in its childishness.
Could it be that the Jezziah is JC himself? If so, hello - **waves** - “how’s the allotment faring in this heat? And isn’t it great that we’ve finally had some proper rain?”
Its endearing because people suddenly think again when it is their own property that is given away or their own friends and family killed for a foreign people to move in and create their own country there. Of course that wouldn't be right. But then Cyclefree doesn't have a problem with that happening to those other people the Palestinians because they are at fault for resisting their land being taken in the first place.
Yes you have mentioned a few times you would like the Palestinians to have their own state and claim you have no animus against them but then demand that the Palestinians are somehow starved, bombed and shot into becoming more moderate before Israel can feel okay to stop waging war on them. How about Israel has to keep attacking them until the magical unicorn turns up instead?
I didn't mind the rain as first but I want summer back now, ground has had plenty of rain.
Do not attribute to me views I’ve never held or stated. I have never stated that I want Palestinians starved, bombed or shot. Never.
I do think they need to accept unequivocally the right of Israel to exist as a homeland for Jews.
You need to learn about the history of the place you take an interest in. Because your posts assume what hou would like to be true and bear very little relation to the facts, as you’ve repeatedly been told. There are a large number of good histories on the region.
Oh or the love of God, you’ve been told endless times. Try and understand: Jews who bought land legally were not stealing anything. Israel was legally created by the UN. You can’t rely on international law one minute to claim - wrongly - that something is an act of war and then ignore international law when it doesn’t suit. Israel is a legally constituted state. The Occupied Territories are not part of Israel and should not be having settlements built there. But Israel proper is a legal state in exactly the same way as lots of other states in the workd created in, say, the last 100 years.
There has been a vile campaign to delegitimise Israel by using Nazi terminology, motivated by anti-semitism precisely so that Israel can be wiped from the map and Jews expelled or killed. Not all those who are concerned about Palestinians are motivated by this, of course, or wish this end but far too many of them do and quite a lot turn a blind eye to their co-campaigners and what their real motivations and aims are.
Buying the land from absentee landlords from under the feet of those that lived and worked there to make it into a different country that the inhabitants who have lived there for centuries cannot live in is stealing, plain and simple. Also all the land wasn't bought some Innocent Palestinians were killed and driven from their land and homes that hadn't even been bought from them.... not that I'm sure that is really the bad part, the killing and driving from homes trumps it really regardless of whether they paid for it really.
Something being voted on doesn't make it morally right, plenty of examples of that throughout history. Not that people in Britain wouldn't fight back if the UN gave some of our country away for a foreign people. What do you think?
I am not relying on international law, when you take someone's land you are waging war on them. Countries fighting over land are making war on each other before there were ever international laws. It is the fighting version of punching someone in the face. You cannot punch someone in the face and then legitimately claim self defence when the fight starts.
Whilst there may be people who say nasty things about wiping Israel out there is an actual event going on right now where Palestine is being wiped out. You might forgive people for thinking that someone said something nasty isn't a good excuse to continue the destruction of the Palestinian people.
Bloody hell I've been away a few days, am now a few thousand miles away and @TheJezziah is still bemoaning the creation of the State of Israel.
As I noted previously, so many lefties on this site not bothering any more even to deny they are anti-Semites.
Death, taxes and PB.
You seem to think anti-Semitism is believing that Palestinians don't deserve to die and be driven from their homes. I think you are just confused that I don't share your Islamophobic view.
So, given your view that it is wrong for people to be killed and driven from their homes, presumably you also think it was wrong that the Jews in Iraq, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Syria etc were also killed and driven from their homes, which were seized by others and that this too was an act of war against them against which they are entitled to defend themselves now (the wrong still not having been put right) and that they should get their property back?
Its endearing because people suddenly think again when it is their own property that is given away or their own friends and family killed for a foreign people to move in and create their own country there. Of course that wouldn't be right. But then Cyclefree doesn't have a problem with that happening to those other people the Palestinians because they are at fault for resisting their land being taken in the first place.
Yes you have mentioned a few times you would like the Palestinians to have their own state and claim you have no animus against them but then demand that the Palestinians are somehow starved, bombed and shot into becoming more moderate before Israel can feel okay to stop waging war on them. How about Israel has to keep attacking them until the magical unicorn turns up instead?
I didn't mind the rain as first but I want summer back now, ground has had plenty of rain.
Do not attribute to me views I’ve never held or stated. I have never stated that I want Palestinians starved, bombed or shot. Never.
I do think they need to accept unequivocally the right of Israel to exist as a homeland for Jews.
You need to learn about the history of the place you take an interest in. Because your posts assume what hou would like to be true and bear very little relation to the facts, as you’ve repeatedly been told. There are a large number of good histories on the region.
And, yes, a bit of sunshine would be welcome now.
Have a good evening.
The bombed, starved and shot is a reference to Israel continuing its actions until such a time as Hamas moderates, not that you personally asked for it but that it what will continue to happen if Israel doesn't change course. I do believe they should recognise Israel but it will take a lot of steps from Israel first, they do hold almost all the cards.
Is it just the Palestinians you believe should be killed and driven from their homes? or are there other non Arabic or Muslim countries in which you are equally happy to see people killed and driven from their homes?
Of course they moved to a foreign country and took it, I printed out the figures earlier, the Jewish population was boosted from massive immigration from abroad. They then took by force land from the people that lived there which involved killing people. When you take peoples land and they resist you generally kill them (or stop taking their land)
Yes the treatment of the Aborigines was shocking, Back in the day I certainly wouldn't be here arguing they deserve it for fighting back or that they should be grateful for the bits of land we have left them. I would call what we are doing to them war and I would want us to stop.
The Palestinians weren't killed and driven from their homes. They were given the vast majority of Palestine in two tranches, first Jordan and then Palestine. Those who got killed and driven from their lands were not because of Israeli aggression but because Jordan attacked Israel. The refugees fled during the two wars that Jordan started.
It’s no use. Historical facts are irrelevant to the Jezziah, other than the ones he’s learnt from his Ladybird Book on Why Israel is Bad and Wrong about Everything.
He also seems to think, wrongly, that he’s the only one on here who cares about the Palestinians despite a number of other posters saying expressly that they would like the Palestinians to have a state of their own. And then he also says that he has no animus against Israel, doesn’t want it to disappear or any Jews expelled but seems completely oblivious to the incompatibility of that ambition with the stated aims of the current Palestinian leadership.
What I really like though is his so-called analogy with Muslims or Saudi Arabians invading Southern England which is almost endearing in its childishness.
Could it be that the Jezziah is JC himself? If so, hello - **waves** - “how’s the allotment faring in this heat? And isn’t it great that we’ve finally had some proper rain?”
"His so-called analogy with Muslims or Saudi Arabians invading Southern England which is almost endearing in its childishness. " A bit patronising.
I thought it a useful analogy as it encourages us to put ourselves in the shoes of Palestinians and how they might feel and react. I can see it makes you uncomfortable.
Bloody hell I've been away a few days, am now a few thousand miles away and @TheJezziah is still bemoaning the creation of the State of Israel.
As I noted previously, so many lefties on this site not bothering any more even to deny they are anti-Semites.
Death, taxes and PB.
You seem to think anti-Semitism is believing that Palestinians don't deserve to die and be driven from their homes. I think you are just confused that I don't share your Islamophobic view.
Nah. You’re over-thinking it.
I think anti-Semitism is when people don't like Jews.
I think you are confusing not liking Jews with not thinking innocent Arabs should be punished for European crimes....
Just throw racism accusations the other way and always do a double check before letting out a free tommy and I'm sure no one will catch onto you.
Buying the land from absentee landlords from under the feet of those that lived and worked there to make it into a different country that the inhabitants who have lived there for centuries cannot live in is stealing, plain and simple. Also all the land wasn't bought some Innocent Palestinians were killed and driven from their land and homes that hadn't even been bought from them.... not that I'm sure that is really the bad part, the killing and driving from homes trumps it really regardless of whether they paid for it really.
Something being voted on doesn't make it morally right, plenty of examples of that throughout history. Not that people in Britain wouldn't fight back if the UN gave some of our country away for a foreign people. What do you think?
I am not relying on international law, when you take someone's land you are waging war on them. Countries fighting over land are making war on each other before there were ever international laws. It is the fighting version of punching someone in the face. You cannot punch someone in the face and then legitimately claim self defence when the fight starts.
Whilst there may be people who say nasty things about wiping Israel out there is an actual event going on right now where Palestine is being wiped out. You might forgive people for thinking that someone said something nasty isn't a good excuse to continue the destruction of the Palestinian people.
Buying land from those who own it is not stealing. Since you don’t understand that simple point, it’s little wonder the rest of your posts make no sense.
If you rented your flat to me and then sold it to Mr Topping, say, for the market price and the good Mr Topping decided to live in the flat and required me to leave under the terms of the lease, he is not “stealing” anything from me, however annoyed I might be that I have to move from somewhere I have lived for a while and like living in.
I simply don’t have time to point out all the historical inaccuracies underlying your assumptions in your posts crafted to make it look as if there was a pre-existing Palestinian state which was somehow illegitimately stolen by Israel. Nor your woeful understanding of international law or the laws of war. There are plenty of books which can educate you on the subject, if you’re really interested.
O/T I see the 1990 BBC House of Cards series is available on iPlayer - is it worth watching?
It's a bit arch by today's standards, but it's meant to be a modern-day Jacobean drama so the form is appropriate. I liked it when it was first shown, though I thought the sequels got progressively worse. I'll be interested to see whether it lives up to my memories.
O/T I see the 1990 BBC House of Cards series is available on iPlayer - is it worth watching?
Yes. I saw it for the first time a few years ago, and I don't think it holds up fantastically well (and it looks very dated - some stuff from the 90s practically looks like its from the 60s), but it is good for at least the first couple years and like the american remake the lead was superb.
I remember when Mattie got thrown off the roof of parliament at the end of series one shouting Daddy at FU. It was emotional and hilarious both at the same time.
I remember when Maddie got thrown off the roof of parliament at the end of series one shouting Daddy at FU. It was emotional and hilarious both at the same time.
Taking land from another country is stealing. It is very very simple. I think you choose not to grasp that point because you don't want to.
Yes and that fictional scenario is applicable to Palestine how?
Do you know what a tenanted famer is?
Seemingly you don't have time to look up all the accuracies either.. which is unfortunate.
Ahh yes the classic Palestine wasn't a country so of course anyone could take it..
Much like London isn't a country so if Muslims immigrated in huge numbers and took it, kicked out the locals and created a new Muslim country nobody could complain!
Taking land unwillingly from people is war, that really isn't a complicated point or even one that requires intelligence or even international law.
It is common sense in the same way you can't punch someone in the face you can't then legitimately claim self defence as you have literally made the first aggressive move.
I don't know if you think maybe saying it in Latin somehow changes it, or dressing it up in bigger words?
The Palestinians weren't killed and driven from their homes. They were given the vast majority of Palestine in two tranches, first Jordan and then Palestine. Those who got killed and driven from their lands were not because of Israeli aggression but because Jordan attacked Israel. The refugees fled during the two wars that Jordan started.
It’s no use. Historical facts are irrelevant to the Jezziah, other than the ones he’s learnt from his Ladybird Book on Why Israel is Bad and Wrong about Everything.
He also seems to think, wrongly, that he’s the only one on here who cares about the Palestinians despite a number of other posters saying expressly that they would like the Palestinians to have a state of their own. And then he also says that he has no animus against Israel, doesn’t want it to disappear or any Jews expelled but seems completely oblivious to the incompatibility of that ambition with the stated aims of the current Palestinian leadership.
What I really like though is his so-called analogy with Muslims or Saudi Arabians invading Southern England which is almost endearing in its childishness.
Could it be that the Jezziah is JC himself? If so, hello - **waves** - “how’s the allotment faring in this heat? And isn’t it great that we’ve finally had some proper rain?”
"His so-called analogy with Muslims or Saudi Arabians invading Southern England which is almost endearing in its childishness. " A bit patronising.
I thought it a useful analogy as it encourages us to put ourselves in the shoes of Palestinians and how they might feel and react. I can see it makes you uncomfortable.
It doesn’t make me uncomfortable in the slightest. I have a lot of sympathy with people whose home is taken over by others. I come from an Irish Catholic family who had little reason to love the British. But I also know - unlike the Corbynistas - that the history of Ireland is - like the history of Israel /Palestine - rather more complicated than Jezziah’s (or Corbyn’s) simplistic and historically inaccurate analysis.
We can easily put ourselves in the shoes of Palestinians by putting ourselves in the shoes of Jews expelled from Iraq at the same time, a country they had lived in for ca. 3000 years. A rather more useful analogy. But funnily enough one that those who criticise Israel never like to dwell on.
The Southern England analogy fails on all sorts of levels as an analogy. I’m sure you can work out why?
I remember when Maddie got thrown off the roof of parliament at the end of series one shouting Daddy at FU. It was emotional and hilarious both at the same time.
Yeah thanks for that spoiler !
Sorry but it's a bit like finding out it was Kristen who shot JR Ewing. If only we had Francis Urquhart negotiating Brexit!
Bloody hell I've been away a few days, am now a few thousand miles away and @TheJezziah is still bemoaning the creation of the State of Israel.
As I noted previously, so many lefties on this site not bothering any more even to deny they are anti-Semites.
Death, taxes and PB.
You seem to think anti-Semitism is believing that Palestinians don't deserve to die and be driven from their homes. I think you are just confused that I don't share your Islamophobic view.
Nah. You’re over-thinking it.
I think anti-Semitism is when people don't like Jews.
I think you are confusing not liking Jews with not thinking innocent Arabs should be punished for European crimes....
Just throw racism accusations the other way and always do a double check before letting out a free tommy and I'm sure no one will catch onto you.
Whether or not Corbyn is an anti-semitic racist is best answered by him. I would say for my part the evidence is stacking up against him unless he acts firmly against the outrageous behavious of his National Exective. The war of words between Hodge, Austin and the National Executive does look apallingly like retribution against MPs who do not share their views. The NE weasel worded statement as to what constitutes anri-semitism demonstrates just how far up their own arses the Corbyn factions within Labour actually are!
On the other hand we then have normally philosophical posters breaking down complex issues that have caused a political conundrum in the middle east for decades down to a black and white 'Israelis are good, Palestinians are bad' argument. Quite frankly that notion is as empty-headed as Corbyn's apparantly opposing view.
O/T I see the 1990 BBC House of Cards series is available on iPlayer - is it worth watching?
Yes. I saw it for the first time a few years ago, and I don't think it holds up fantastically well (and it looks very dated - some stuff from the 90s practically looks like its from the 60s), but it is good for at least the first couple years and like the american remake the lead was superb.
I'm always interested by what people actually mean when they describe something as "dated". Does it mean the technicalities are dated, like for instance the type of camera angles they use, or does it mean the characters and situations themselves seem dated? Or a combination of the two? Of course something from 25 years ago ought to look dated to the extent of 25 years, but I agree that sometimes they look even older.
It doesn’t make me uncomfortable in the slightest. I have a lot of sympathy with people whose home is taken over by others. I come from an Irish Catholic family who had little reason to love the British. But I also know - unlike the Corbynistas - that the history of Ireland is - like the history of Israel /Palestine - rather more complicated than Jezziah’s (or Corbyn’s) simplistic and historically inaccurate analysis.
We can easily put ourselves in the shoes of Palestinians by putting ourselves in the shoes of Jews expelled from Iraq at the same time, a country they had lived in for ca. 3000 years. A rather more useful analogy. But funnily enough one that those who criticise Israel never like to dwell on.
The Southern England analogy fails on all sorts of levels as an analogy. I’m sure you can work out why?
Nice middle class white people getting displaced, powerful country that inflicts its will on others and finally a christian country.
Can you imagine how terrible it would be if it happened here in Britain, no, no that won't do. Best give other peoples land away instead.
Okay kinda joking genuinely though I'm not sure why?
The main reason I see given are the Jewish people deserved it because of what they had been through, now the Kurds have been through a lot but not as much as the Jewish people I assume.
Hypothetically though let's say the Kurds had suffered as much as the Jewish people and maybe that they used to live in Britain thousands of years ago and a few thousands had stayed living in Britain so it was considered their holy land.
Is there any reason why they shouldn't create their country in England but Jewish people should in Israel?
Is there another condition that secures it?
I'm assuming the Kurds buy some of the land that becomes their future country as well and other small things that legitimised Israel in your eyes.
Bloody hell I've been away a few days, am now a few thousand miles away and @TheJezziah is still bemoaning the creation of the State of Israel.
As I noted previously, so many lefties on this site not bothering any more even to deny they are anti-Semites.
Death, taxes and PB.
You seem to think anti-Semitism is believing that Palestinians don't deserve to die and be driven from their homes. I think you are just confused that I don't share your Islamophobic view.
Nah. You’re over-thinking it.
I think anti-Semitism is when people don't like Jews.
I think you are confusing not liking Jews with not thinking innocent Arabs should be punished for European crimes....
Just throw racism accusations the other way and always do a double check before letting out a free tommy and I'm sure no one will catch onto you.
Whether or not Corbyn is an anti-semitic racist is best answered by him. I would say for my part the evidence is stacking up against him unless he acts firmly against the outrageous behavious of his National Exective. The war of words between Hodge, Austin and the National Executive does look apallingly like retribution against MPs who do not share their views. The NE weasel worded statement as to what constitutes anri-semitism demonstrates just how far up their own arses the Corbyn factions within Labour actually are!
On the other hand we then have normally philosophical posters breaking down complex issues that have caused a political conundrum in the middle east for decades down to a black and white 'Israelis are good, Palestinians are bad' argument. Quite frankly that notion is as empty-headed as Corbyn's apparantly opposing view.
Tonight we saw a 17 year old Palestinian girl released from Israeli jail. Her crime ? She slapped an Israeli soldier. Her sentence: 8 months
At about the same time as her sentence, an Israeli soldier was also found guilty of unlawfully killing a Palestinian. His sentence: 9 months
"It's a kamikaze approach to No Deal. It's total chaos. They are deliberately trying to make No Deal look bad. It's a fallacy to say No Deal will be a disaster. It won't. We need to highlight the risk for the EU, the negatives for them"
Poor, poor, Theresa May that she has to deal with these mad people.
I remember when Mattie got thrown off the roof of parliament at the end of series one shouting Daddy at FU. It was emotional and hilarious both at the same time.
Buying the land from absentee landlords from under the feet of those that lived and worked there to make it into a different country that the inhabitants who have lived there for centuries cannot live in is stealing, plain and simple. Also all the land wasn't bought some Innocent Palestinians were killed and driven from their land and homes that hadn't even been bought from them.... not that I'm sure that is really the bad part, the killing and driving from homes trumps it really regardless of whether they paid for it really.
Something being voted on doesn't make it morally right, plenty of examples of that throughout history. Not that people in Britain wouldn't fight back if the UN gave some of our country away for a foreign people. What do you think?
I am not relying on international law, when you take someone's land you are waging war on them. Countries fighting over land are making war on each other before there were ever international laws. It is the fighting version of punching someone in the face. You cannot punch someone in the face and then legitimately claim self defence when the fight starts.
Whilst there may be people who say nasty things about wiping Israel out there is an actual event going on right now where Palestine is being wiped out. You might forgive people for thinking that someone said something nasty isn't a good excuse to continue the destruction of the Palestinian people.
Buying land from those who own it is not stealing. Since you don’t understand that simple point, it’s little wonder the rest of your posts make no sense.
If you rented your flat to me and then sold it to Mr Topping, say, for the market price and the good Mr Topping decided to live in the flat and required me to leave under the terms of the lease, he is not “stealing” anything from me, however annoyed I might be that I have to move from somewhere I have lived for a while and like living in.
I simply don’t have time to point out all the historical inaccuracies underlying your assumptions in your posts crafted to make it look as if there was a pre-existing Palestinian state which was somehow illegitimately stolen by Israel. Nor your woeful understanding of international law or the laws of war. There are plenty of books which can educate you on the subject, if you’re really interested.
And now, really, good night.
I guess the illegal settlements were bought land according to you. Why are you so blind when it comes to Israel ?
Bloody hell I've been away a few days, am now a few thousand miles away and @TheJezziah is still bemoaning the creation of the State of Israel.
As I noted previously, so many lefties on this site not bothering any more even to deny they are anti-Semites.
Death, taxes and PB.
You seem to think anti-Semitism is believing that Palestinians don't deserve to die and be driven from their homes. I think you are just confused that I don't share your Islamophobic view.
Nah. You’re over-thinking it.
I think anti-Semitism is when people don't like Jews.
I think you are confusing not liking Jews with not thinking innocent Arabs should be punished for European crimes....
Just throw racism accusations the other way and always do a double check before letting out a free tommy and I'm sure no one will catch onto you.
Whether or not Corbyn is an anti-semitic racist is best answered by him. I would say for my part the evidence is stacking up against him unless he acts firmly against the outrageous behavious of his National Exective. The war of words between Hodge, Austin and the National Executive does look apallingly like retribution against MPs who do not share their views. The NE weasel worded statement as to what constitutes anri-semitism demonstrates just how far up their own arses the Corbyn factions within Labour actually are!
On the other hand we then have normally philosophical posters breaking down complex issues that have caused a political conundrum in the middle east for decades down to a black and white 'Israelis are good, Palestinians are bad' argument. Quite frankly that notion is as empty-headed as Corbyn's apparantly opposing view.
TBH I do wonder if it is that we brought in much tougher regulations about abuse in the party, partially in response to the right of the party, which are supposed to be the rules for every member from the newest member to the most senior MP, you could maybe argue for Hodge to get off but Austin should at least get a reprimand or whatever we call a low level warning.
Bloody hell I've been away a few days, am now a few thousand miles away and @TheJezziah is still bemoaning the creation of the State of Israel.
As I noted previously, so many lefties on this site not bothering any more even to deny they are anti-Semites.
Death, taxes and PB.
You seem to think anti-Semitism is believing that Palestinians don't deserve to die and be driven from their homes. I think you are just confused that I don't share your Islamophobic view.
"It's a kamikaze approach to No Deal. It's total chaos. They are deliberately trying to make No Deal look bad. It's a fallacy to say No Deal will be a disaster. It won't. We need to highlight the risk for the EU, the negatives for them"
Poor, poor, Theresa May that she has to deal with these mad people.
Oh good god. Look, I totally get a concern that maybe an unjustified level of project fear may be tried - there are some silly stories out there - but they really are being totally bloody unreasonable.
"They are deliberately trying to make no deal look bad"
No f*cking sh*t. The government position is that a deal would be a good thing, of course it will say that alternatives are worse. There's also no point in saying how bad it will be for the EU in a no deal scenario (which is a contradiction in the complaints - it is making things look too bad, but also is unfair because it only talks about where it is bad for us...meaning it is bad), since the EU will have its own technical assessments on that and no more pressure will exist for them if we release something saying they would be hit very hard, if they don't agree with it.
If people think a deal May will get, if she can get one, is bad, then fine, it makes sense to support her for now but make unsatisfied noises at the direction of things and maybe not back it later. But if someone is a no deal supporter, angry that no deal is being made to look bad, send in your letter the Graham Brady already, this interminable whining that the government is making no deal look bad, when no deal is not the policy it is pursuing, is just irritating.
Buying the land from absentee landlords from under the feet of those
Buying land from those who own it is not stealing. Since you don’t understand that simple point, it’s little wonder the rest of your posts make no sense.
If you rented your flat to me and then sold it to Mr Topping, say, for the market price and the good Mr Topping decided to live in the flat and required me to leave under the terms of the lease, he is not “stealing” anything from me, however annoyed I might be that I have to move from somewhere I have lived for a while and like living in.
I simply don’t have time to point out all the historical inaccuracies underlying your assumptions in your posts crafted to make it look as if there was a pre-existing Palestinian state which was somehow illegitimately stolen by Israel. Nor your woeful understanding of international law or the laws of war. There are plenty of books which can educate you on the subject, if you’re really interested.
And now, really, good night.
The parallel may well be an anglo-Irish squire evicting his Irish tenants in the Eighteenth century, so the land could be sold on, or the similar stories from the Scotish Highland clearances. Both perfectly legal in their day, but causing a legacy of bitterness to this day. At least the Irish and Highlanders could emigrate to the New World, the Palestinian tenant farmers were just forced off the lands that they had tilled for generations. This was happening even before Hitler's rise to power, hence the Arab revolt of 1930.
One has to wonder at your capacity to endorse collective punishment. Why should Palestinians have to compensate for wrongs inflicted in Syria, Egypt and Yemen on their Jewish populations?
I am all for a 2 state solution based on the 1967 borders, but Israel continues to make that more difficult each year by its illegal settlement activities. That leaves it in the morally corrosive position of occupier of a resentful and dispossessed people. That moral decline was exemplified by its decision to make Israeli Arabs second class citizens.
Our own part in the region has been unhelpful in both 20th and 21st Century, leaving a legacy of mistrust on both sides. We have no useful role there.
Bloody hell I've been away a few days, am now a few thousand miles away and @TheJezziah is still bemoaning the creation of the State of Israel.
As I noted previously, so many lefties on this site not bothering any more even to deny they are anti-Semites.
Death, taxes and PB.
You seem to think anti-Semitism is believing that Palestinians don't deserve to die and be driven from their homes. I think you are just confused that I don't share your Islamophobic view.
O/T I see the 1990 BBC House of Cards series is available on iPlayer - is it worth watching?
Yes. I saw it for the first time a few years ago, and I don't think it holds up fantastically well (and it looks very dated - some stuff from the 90s practically looks like its from the 60s), but it is good for at least the first couple years and like the american remake the lead was superb.
I'm always interested by what people actually mean when they describe something as "dated". Does it mean the technicalities are dated, like for instance the type of camera angles they use, or does it mean the characters and situations themselves seem dated? Or a combination of the two? Of course something from 25 years ago ought to look dated to the extent of 25 years, but I agree that sometimes they look even older.
I think there's an awkward point between modern and period. We look at footage from, say, the sixties or seventies and it's sufficiently far away to see the bits and bobs as period detail. And present-day stuff is present-day. But the bit in the middle seems wrong.
Plus some things have changed. Back then you had very flat lighting and large fixed-off cameras. You don't get that so much these days.
O/T I see the 1990 BBC House of Cards series is available on iPlayer - is it worth watching?
Yes. I saw it for the first time a few years ago, and I don't think it holds up fantastically well (and it looks very dated - some stuff from the 90s practically looks like its from the 60s), but it is good for at least the first couple years and like the american remake the lead was superb.
I'm always interested by what people actually mean when they describe something as "dated". Does it mean the technicalities are dated, like for instance the type of camera angles they use, or does it mean the characters and situations themselves seem dated? Or a combination of the two? Of course something from 25 years ago ought to look dated to the extent of 25 years, but I agree that sometimes they look even older.
I think there's an awkward point between modern and period. We look at footage from, say, the sixties or seventies and it's sufficiently far away to see the bits and bobs as period detail. And present-day stuff is present-day. But the bit in the middle seems wrong.
Plus some things have changed. Back then you had very flat lighting and large fixed-off cameras. You don't get that so much these days.
Interesting. The Steadicam has of course been around since the mid-1970s but I suppose it was very expensive to use as far as most producers were concerned so they mainly stuck with fixed cameras.
"It's a kamikaze approach to No Deal. It's total chaos. They are deliberately trying to make No Deal look bad. It's a fallacy to say No Deal will be a disaster. It won't. We need to highlight the risk for the EU, the negatives for them"
Poor, poor, Theresa May that she has to deal with these mad people.
So Steve Baker wants billboards in other countries to try to scare them into giving us a good deal, but he doesn't want to tell people in the UK how bad it will be? Madness.
Bloody hell I've been away a few days, am now a few thousand miles away and @TheJezziah is still bemoaning the creation of the State of Israel.
As I noted previously, so many lefties on this site not bothering any more even to deny they are anti-Semites.
Death, taxes and PB.
You seem to think anti-Semitism is believing that Palestinians don't deserve to die and be driven from their homes. I think you are just confused that I don't share your Islamophobic view.
Nah. You’re over-thinking it.
I think anti-Semitism is when people don't like Jews.
I think you are confusing not liking Jews with not thinking innocent Arabs should be punished for European crimes....
Just throw racism accusations the other way and always do a double check before letting out a free tommy and I'm sure no one will catch onto you.
Whether or not Corbyn is an anti-semitic racist is best answered by him. I would say for my part the evidence is stacking up against him unless he acts firmly against the outrageous behavious of his National Exective. The war of words between Hodge, Austin and the National Executive does look apallingly like retribution against MPs who do not share their views. The NE weasel worded statement as to what constitutes anri-semitism demonstrates just how far up their own arses the Corbyn factions within Labour actually are!
On the other hand we then have normally philosophical posters breaking down complex issues that have caused a political conundrum in the middle east for decades down to a black and white 'Israelis are good, Palestinians are bad' argument. Quite frankly that notion is as empty-headed as Corbyn's apparantly opposing view.
TBH I do wonder if it is that we brought in much tougher regulations about abuse in the party, partially in response to the right of the party, which are supposed to be the rules for every member from the newest member to the most senior MP, you could maybe argue for Hodge to get off but Austin should at least get a reprimand or whatever we call a low level warning.
I am afraid the term 'couldn't organise a piss-up and brewery' spring to mind!
Mahmoud Abbas as long ago as 2011 stated that it was a historic mistake for the Arabs NOT to accept the UN Partition Plan.
Can I ask why the Partition of Palestine was such a grievous, hideously pernicious crime, but the Partitions of (for argument's sake) Ireland or India weren't?
..
Why discuss Palestine rather than Ireland or India?uge amount about. You can try and convince they were
I suppose
Imposed by one side? It was voted for by UN member states. UN General Assembly Resolution 181.
Yes, but with the Palestinians being over ruled rather than persuaded.
.
.
Gandhi did not agree to it.
But the Congress Party did agree to partition, and actively participated in the process.
I thought the Muslim League wanted Partition?
Certainly the Muslim League advocated it from 1940, having previously favoured federalism as a solution. Congress's 1942 Quit India campaign led to the internment of the Congress Leaders until 1945 gave Jinnah uncontested political prominence, so he swept the Muslim seats in the postwar election. It was when Mountbatten became Viceroy that Congress leaders reluctantly agreed.
I also think it fair to say that the aftermath of partition does remain a flashpoint still, particularly in Kashmir.
It's true that Kashmir is a flashpoint, but Jezziah doesn't seem to know or care about it.
My take is that if Kashmir was a directly administered British province, as opposed to being ruled by a Maharaja, it probably would have been assigned to Pakistan except for the southwestern area around Jammu, which would have been, er, partitioned to India.
So why wasn't it assigned as such ? After all, Radcliffe drew the lines elsewhere in India. Some lines went right through people's houses.
Kashmir was a princely state ruled by the Dogra Maharajas till 1947. Raja Harisingh was the Hindu king of Kashmir princely state during the formation of an independent India and Pakistan.
Muslims constituted 93% of Kashmir then and similarly today. [ If you take both the Kashmirs ] The Nehru family and other Pandits came from Kashmir. Hence their direct line with Mountbatten and the Brits.
The sudden sympathy of PB Tories for Margaret Hodge is very touching. However, when she was the Chair, Public Accounts Select committee and she went after tax dodgers, all we heard was that she was from the Oppenheimer family and what trusts she had. All that she denied.
The sudden sympathy of PB Tories for Margaret Hodge is very touching. However, when she was the Chair, Public Accounts Select committee and she went after tax dodgers, all we heard was that she was from the Oppenheimer family and what trusts she had. All that she denied.
Reminds me of the transformation in the way that Ken Clarke is regarded by many on the left. When he was a cigar-chomping Health Secretary and Chancellor he was Public Enemy Number One.
O/T I see the 1990 BBC House of Cards series is available on iPlayer - is it worth watching?
Yes. I saw it for the first time a few years ago, and I don't think it holds up fantastically well (and it looks very dated - some stuff from the 90s practically looks like its from the 60s), but it is good for at least the first couple years and like the american remake the lead was superb.
I'm always interested by what people actually mean when they describe something as "dated". Does it mean the technicalities are dated, like for instance the type of camera angles they use, or does it mean the characters and situations themselves seem dated? Or a combination of the two? Of course something from 25 years ago ought to look dated to the extent of 25 years, but I agree that sometimes they look even older.
I think there's an awkward point between modern and period. We look at footage from, say, the sixties or seventies and it's sufficiently far away to see the bits and bobs as period detail. And present-day stuff is present-day. But the bit in the middle seems wrong.
Plus some things have changed. Back then you had very flat lighting and large fixed-off cameras. You don't get that so much these days.
Interesting. The Steadicam has of course been around since the mid-1970s but I suppose it was very expensive to use as far as most producers were concerned so they mainly stuck with fixed cameras.
(plus I said "fixed off", not "fixed". The cameras could move, but didn't much. Have a look at something like the Goodies: establishing shot of set, close-up of actor, reaction shot of other actor: the rhythm is generated by cutting between two/three cameras, not moving one. However I am straying into @tyson territory, who can explain it better than I)
The sudden sympathy of PB Tories for Margaret Hodge is very touching. However, when she was the Chair, Public Accounts Select committee and she went after tax dodgers, all we heard was that she was from the Oppenheimer family and what trusts she had. All that she denied.
The fact that she's a tax dodging hypocrite doesn't change the fact that she's authentically also from a family that was victim of the Holocaust and is opposed to racism. Doesn't make antisemitism justifiable.
Mahmoud Abbas as long ago as 2011 stated that it was a historic mistake for the Arabs NOT to accept the UN Partition Plan.
Can I ask why the Partition of Palestine was such a grievous, hideously pernicious crime, but the Partitions of (for argument's sake) Ireland or India weren't?
..
Why discuss Palestine rather than Ireland or India?uge amount about. You can try and convince they were
I suppose
Imposed by one side? It was voted for by UN member states. UN General Assembly Resolution 181.
Yes, but with the Palestinians being over ruled rather than persuaded.
.
.
Gandhi did not agree to it.
But the Congress Party did agree to partition, and actively participated in the process.
I thought the Muslim League wanted Partition?
Certainly the Muslim League advocated it from 1940, having previously favoured federalism as a solution. Congress's 1942 Quit Ind
I also think it fair to say that the aftermath of partition does remain a flashpoint still, particularly in Kashmir.
It's true that Kashmir is a flashpoint, but Jezziah doesn't seem to know or care about it.
My take is that if Kashmir was a directly administered British province, as opposed to being ruled by a Maharaja, it probably would have been assigned to Pakistan except for the southwestern area around Jammu, which would have been, er, partitioned to India.
So why wasn't it assigned as such ? After all, Radcliffe drew the lines elsewhere in India. Some lines went right through people's houses.
Kashmir was a princely state ruled by the Dogra Maharajas till 1947. Raja Harisingh was the Hindu king of Kashmir princely state during the formation of an independent India and Pakistan.
Muslims constituted 93% of Kashmir then and similarly today. [ If you take both the Kashmirs ] The Nehru family and other Pandits came from Kashmir. Hence their direct line with Mountbatten and the Brits.
Let's leave Mrs Mountbatten out of this....
It wasn't assigned as such because it was a Princely State! As for Mrs. Mountbatten:
They won 4 by election seats they won anyway at the last election. The most notable seat was Longman a working class seat in Brisbane where the Liberals saw a huge drop in their first preference vote which shifted to One Nation. Oddly Pauline Hanson left Australia during the campaign to go on holiday in Ireland - an unusual choice for a winter break!
The federal election next year looks pretty close and the two party preferred voting in polling is neck and neck.
An oddity of Australian by-elections is that the convention is the two main parties don't oppose each other in seats they are defending. So even if the previous general election result was 51/49 to either Labour or Liberal/National, the previous loser doesn't stand. This obviously means seats don't usually change hands, because the only way to lose a by-election is to a minor party like the Greens. But I notice that in one or two of these by-elections the convention didn't hold and both parties did contest it. Not sure why that was. Maybe it's broken down.
An oddity of Australian by-elections is that the convention is the two main parties don't oppose each other in seats they are defending. So even if the previous general election result was 51/49 to either Labour or Liberal/National, the previous loser doesn't stand. This obviously means seats don't usually change hands, because the only way to lose a by-election is to a minor party like the Greens. But I notice that in one or two of these by-elections the convention didn't hold and both parties did contest it. Not sure why that was. Maybe it's broken down.
I think it was due to the fact that the governing LNP coalition has a wafer thin majority in the lower house and the two contested Labour seats in Brisbane and rural Tasmania were highly marginal. So convention was dropped due to political necessity.
The two safe Labour seats in Perth weren't contested.
Comments
I do think they need to accept unequivocally the right of Israel to exist as a homeland for Jews.
You need to learn about the history of the place you take an interest in. Because your posts assume what hou would like to be true and bear very little relation to the facts, as you’ve
repeatedly been told. There are a large number of good histories on the region.
And, yes, a bit of sunshine would be welcome now.
Have a good evening.
Something being voted on doesn't make it morally right, plenty of examples of that throughout history. Not that people in Britain wouldn't fight back if the UN gave some of our country away for a foreign people. What do you think?
I am not relying on international law, when you take someone's land you are waging war on them. Countries fighting over land are making war on each other before there were ever international laws. It is the fighting version of punching someone in the face. You cannot punch someone in the face and then legitimately claim self defence when the fight starts.
Whilst there may be people who say nasty things about wiping Israel out there is an actual event going on right now where Palestine is being wiped out. You might forgive people for thinking that someone said something nasty isn't a good excuse to continue the destruction of the Palestinian people.
Anyway good evening.
I thought it a useful analogy as it encourages us to put ourselves in the shoes of Palestinians and how they might feel and react. I can see it makes you uncomfortable.
Just throw racism accusations the other way and always do a double check before letting out a free tommy and I'm sure no one will catch onto you.
@benpointer
If you rented your flat to me and then sold it to Mr Topping, say, for the market price and the good Mr Topping decided to live in the flat and required me to leave under the terms of the lease, he is not “stealing” anything from me, however annoyed I might be that I have to move from somewhere I have lived for a while and like living in.
I simply don’t have time to point out all the historical inaccuracies underlying your assumptions in your posts crafted to make it look as if there was a pre-existing Palestinian state which was somehow illegitimately stolen by Israel. Nor your woeful understanding of international law or the laws of war. There are plenty of books which can educate you on the subject, if you’re really interested.
And now, really, good night.
Sorry - should I have put that in spoilers?
Yes and that fictional scenario is applicable to Palestine how?
Do you know what a tenanted famer is?
Seemingly you don't have time to look up all the accuracies either.. which is unfortunate.
Ahh yes the classic Palestine wasn't a country so of course anyone could take it..
Much like London isn't a country so if Muslims immigrated in huge numbers and took it, kicked out the locals and created a new Muslim country nobody could complain!
Taking land unwillingly from people is war, that really isn't a complicated point or even one that requires intelligence or even international law.
It is common sense in the same way you can't punch someone in the face you can't then legitimately claim self defence as you have literally made the first aggressive move.
I don't know if you think maybe saying it in Latin somehow changes it, or dressing it up in bigger words?
It really doesn't.
We can easily put ourselves in the shoes of Palestinians by putting ourselves in the shoes of Jews expelled from Iraq at the same time, a country they had lived in for ca. 3000 years. A rather more useful analogy. But funnily enough one that those who criticise Israel never like to dwell on.
The Southern England analogy fails on all sorts of levels as an analogy. I’m sure you can work out why?
On the other hand we then have normally philosophical posters breaking down complex issues that have caused a political conundrum in the middle east for decades down to a black and white 'Israelis are good, Palestinians are bad' argument. Quite frankly that notion is as empty-headed as Corbyn's apparantly opposing view.
Can you imagine how terrible it would be if it happened here in Britain, no, no that won't do. Best give other peoples land away instead.
Okay kinda joking genuinely though I'm not sure why?
The main reason I see given are the Jewish people deserved it because of what they had been through, now the Kurds have been through a lot but not as much as the Jewish people I assume.
Hypothetically though let's say the Kurds had suffered as much as the Jewish people and maybe that they used to live in Britain thousands of years ago and a few thousands had stayed living in Britain so it was considered their holy land.
Is there any reason why they shouldn't create their country in England but Jewish people should in Israel?
Is there another condition that secures it?
I'm assuming the Kurds buy some of the land that becomes their future country as well and other small things that legitimised Israel in your eyes.
At about the same time as her sentence, an Israeli soldier was also found guilty of unlawfully killing a Palestinian. His sentence: 9 months
Israeli justice vis-a-vis Palestinians.
Poor, poor, Theresa May that she has to deal with these mad people.
"They are deliberately trying to make no deal look bad"
No f*cking sh*t. The government position is that a deal would be a good thing, of course it will say that alternatives are worse. There's also no point in saying how bad it will be for the EU in a no deal scenario (which is a contradiction in the complaints - it is making things look too bad, but also is unfair because it only talks about where it is bad for us...meaning it is bad), since the EU will have its own technical assessments on that and no more pressure will exist for them if we release something saying they would be hit very hard, if they don't agree with it.
If people think a deal May will get, if she can get one, is bad, then fine, it makes sense to support her for now but make unsatisfied noises at the direction of things and maybe not back it later. But if someone is a no deal supporter, angry that no deal is being made to look bad, send in your letter the Graham Brady already, this interminable whining that the government is making no deal look bad, when no deal is not the policy it is pursuing, is just irritating.
One has to wonder at your capacity to endorse collective punishment. Why should Palestinians have to compensate for wrongs inflicted in Syria, Egypt and Yemen on their Jewish populations?
I am all for a 2 state solution based on the 1967 borders, but Israel continues to make that more difficult each year by its illegal settlement activities. That leaves it in the morally corrosive position of occupier of a resentful and dispossessed people. That moral decline was exemplified by its decision to make Israeli Arabs second class citizens.
Our own part in the region has been unhelpful in both 20th and 21st Century, leaving a legacy of mistrust on both sides. We have no useful role there.
Plus some things have changed. Back then you had very flat lighting and large fixed-off cameras. You don't get that so much these days.
Kashmir was a princely state ruled by the Dogra Maharajas till 1947. Raja Harisingh was the Hindu king of Kashmir princely state during the formation of an independent India and Pakistan.
Muslims constituted 93% of Kashmir then and similarly today. [ If you take both the Kashmirs ]
The Nehru family and other Pandits came from Kashmir. Hence their direct line with Mountbatten and the Brits.
Let's leave Mrs Mountbatten out of this....
The IEA caught with their pants down.
(plus I said "fixed off", not "fixed". The cameras could move, but didn't much. Have a look at something like the Goodies: establishing shot of set, close-up of actor, reaction shot of other actor: the rhythm is generated by cutting between two/three cameras, not moving one. However I am straying into @tyson territory, who can explain it better than I)
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/apos-independent-city-state-totnes-072659229.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-28/by-election-super-saturday-results-leaves-coalition-questions/10047548
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-205e7443c208290b6a32e331a963b9d1
The federal election next year looks pretty close and the two party preferred voting in polling is neck and neck.
The two safe Labour seats in Perth weren't contested.