Clearly, in the wake of the 'Tommy Robinson' circus coming to town, Boris decided to base his relaunch around a controversial subject that would also win him the approbation of the hard Right. But it all looked clumsy and contrived, and the quips about letterboxes etc. just juvenile in that context. I think Boris has flunked it.
Daily Mail comments yesterday were very pro Boris and he did not even propose to ban the full veil as say France and Denmark have done
It just all seems so... scripted and obvious. Has one meeting with Bannon and suddenly the former Mayor of London Oh Oh Boris hates the Muslims now, does he?
OH WELL, I'M SURE IT'S COMPLETELY GENUINE AND NOT SHITTY GAMBIT FROM A NARCISSISTIC MORAL VACUUM WHO WILL SAY AND DO ANYTHING TO GET NOTICED.
Just imagine how thick you'd have to be to buy his Damascene conversion to Muslim hate.
When did he ever say he hated Muslims? He even said he had read the Koran and could find no requirement for the full veil within it.
57% of UK voters wanted to ban the burka in a 2016 poll including even 48% of Labour voters as well as a big majority of Tory and UKIP voters
I vaguely remember from reading Karen Armstrong that the burqa is *not* religious but *political*
It was very rare in Islam until the British suzereignty of Egypt. We banned the burqa on the grounds it was sexist and demeaning to women. The result was it became a nationalist / anti-British symbol
My mum is certain that burqas are for more common in southern India (Kerala state) nowadays, than when she was growing up there. Kerala's Muslim community is roughly 25% of the state's population.
That's precisely what many in "the greatest generation" did. They sacrificed their lives to ensure we could be a free democracy.
I'm not prepared to throw away their sacrifice on the altar of potentially avoiding a one off recession.
So yes. Democracy and freedom are worth the loss of life. A recession is not.
Mental and utterly unspoofable.
Hitler’s Germany was a democracy too.
Just saying.
Are you sure about that?
He won an election in 1933.
1) That depends on your definition of win (could a Labour supporter helpfully say that May didn't win last year)?
2) He was never actually elected to the office of President as required by Weimar which is where he technically derived his power from. On the only occasion he stood he came a poor second to an 84 year old war hero. He was appointed Reichkanzler by the president (which didn't require him to have a majority in the Reichstag) he simply assumed the office of President, merging it with the Chancellorship and creating the new office of 'Fuhrer;'
3) The election of 1933 was agreed to be the last election by the cabinet as a whole, of which only three members were Nazis ('any return to the Democratic system is to be absolutely avoided').
4) Subsequent plebiscites and elections (1934, 1936 and 1938) were marked by massive fraud and intimidation and offered no choice of candidates, and the questions offered only approval or disapproval of actions already taken - Hitler's assumption of the Presidency, the reoccupation of the Rhineland, and the Anschluss with Austria.
4) All other parties were banned and laws were passed by decree.
Not seeing this democracy lark.
I’ll do a thread this weekend pointing out the similarities between the 1933 German election and the 2016 referendum.
Does anyone really think that Corbyn is saying that they don't have a right to exist, are not a democracy etc? He is making the point that they push hard for positive comments about Israel which influences the reporting of their current behaviour.
Oh come on. The 'right to exist' is something which not expressed by any other nation, and Corbyn is clearly questioning it. It shouldn't be something which is even in mind, and yet Corbyn has a issue with it.
It is a point that Israel pushes for the very obvious reason that it reminds people that they are surrounded by states at least nominally committed to wiping Israel off the map. It is a valid point but they go too far in seeking to justify their extreme behaviour towards Gaza and the West Bank by reference to it.
Do you seriously dispute that Israeli spokesmen emphasise that they are a democracy surrounded by dictators and theocracies committed to destroy them and that their actions should be looked at in that context? Of course they do, why wouldn't they?
To be fair to Boris (not a sentence I thought I'd say), I think his burqa comments fall into the "juvenile and stupid" category more than they do "racist". After all, it's not like a comparison to a letterbox is a commonly racist trope to my knowledge (though the comparison to a bank-robber is more questionable).
That said, I can't help but notice there's some PBers who've been very silent on this topic, who I'm 100% convinced would've been in paroxysms of outrage if a Labour activist had been discovered to have tweeted some mocking comments about Orthodox Jewish dress.
You can see Steve Bannon's approach already. Politicians will queue up to denounce Boris Johnson's remarks, only to find out time and again that the public have a much more robust view of what can be discussed. The idea is to cement Boris Johnson as the next Trump.
To be fair to Boris (not a sentence I thought I'd say), I think his burqa comments fall into the "juvenile and stupid" category more than they do "racist". After all, it's not like a comparison to a letterbox is a commonly racist trope to my knowledge (though the comparison to a bank-robber is more questionable).
That said, I can't help but notice there's some PBers who've been very silent on this topic, who I'm 100% convinced would've been in paroxysms of outrage if a Labour activist had been discovered to have tweeted some mocking comments about Orthodox Jewish dress.
It was utter stupid and offensive. Boris is a buffoon.
Having said that, I do not like the Burka. It it in my opinion a clear method of oppression towards women.
I have no issue with a headscarf or modest clothing to a certain degree.
It is perfectly possible to dress modestly without headscarf or burqa.
It's a problem because the politicians we currently have are going to fuck it up.
For many, many people the privations caused by Brexit are a big problem.
You are lucky not to be one perhaps.
If the politicians we have fuck it up then they will face the ballot box and can be removed.
That's democracy.
And in stark contrast to the EU....
1. European Parliament - elected 2. European Council - elected heads of government 3. Council of the European Union - elected ministers of government 4. European Commission - nominated by 3 and approved en bloc by 1 5. Court of Justice of the European Union, 6. European Central Bank and 7. Court of Auditors - do you really think these officials should be directly elected by the electorate?
Clearly, in the wake of the 'Tommy Robinson' circus coming to town, Boris decided to base his relaunch around a controversial subject that would also win him the approbation of the hard Right. But it all looked clumsy and contrived, and the quips about letterboxes etc. just juvenile in that context. I think Boris has flunked it.
Daily Mail comments yesterday were very pro Boris and he did not even propose to ban the full veil as say France and Denmark have done
It just all seems so... scripted and obvious. Has one meeting with Bannon and suddenly the former Mayor of London Oh Oh Boris hates the Muslims now, does he?
OH WELL, I'M SURE IT'S COMPLETELY GENUINE AND NOT SHITTY GAMBIT FROM A NARCISSISTIC MORAL VACUUM WHO WILL SAY AND DO ANYTHING TO GET NOTICED.
Just imagine how thick you'd have to be to buy his Damascene conversion to Muslim hate.
When did he ever say he hated Muslims? He even said he had read the Koran and could find no requirement for the full veil within it.
57% of UK voters wanted to ban the burka in a 2016 poll including even 48% of Labour voters as well as a big majority of Tory and UKIP voters
I vaguely remember from reading Karen Armstrong that the burqa is *not* religious but *political*
It was very rare in Islam until the British suzereignty of Egypt. We banned the burqa on the grounds it was sexist and demeaning to women. The result was it became a nationalist / anti-British symbol
My mum is certain that burqas are for more common in southern India (Kerala state) nowadays, than when she was growing up there. Kerala's Muslim community is roughly 25% of the state's population.
In far too many places in the world, politics is religion and religion is politics. Its akin to dancing angels on pinheads.
That's precisely what many in "the greatest generation" did. They sacrificed their lives to ensure we could be a free democracy.
I'm not prepared to throw away their sacrifice on the altar of potentially avoiding a one off recession.
So yes. Democracy and freedom are worth the loss of life. A recession is not.
Mental and utterly unspoofable.
Hitler’s Germany was a democracy too.
Just saying.
Are you sure about that?
He won an election in 1933.
1) That depends on your definition of win (could a Labour supporter helpfully say that May didn't win last year)?
2) He was never actually elected to the office of President as required by Weimar which is where he technically derived his power from. On the only occasion he stood he came a poor second to an 84 year old war hero. He was appointed Reichkanzler by the president (which didn't require him to have a majority in the Reichstag) he simply assumed the office of President, merging it with the Chancellorship and creating the new office of 'Fuhrer;'
3) The election of 1933 was agreed to be the last election by the cabinet as a whole, of which only three members were Nazis ('any return to the Democratic system is to be absolutely avoided').
4) Subsequent plebiscites and elections (1934, 1936 and 1938) were marked by massive fraud and intimidation and offered no choice of candidates, and the questions offered only approval or disapproval of actions already taken - Hitler's assumption of the Presidency, the reoccupation of the Rhineland, and the Anschluss with Austria.
4) All other parties were banned and laws were passed by decree.
Not seeing this democracy lark.
I’ll do a thread this weekend pointing out the similarities between the 1933 German election and the 2016 referendum.
It's a problem because the politicians we currently have are going to fuck it up.
For many, many people the privations caused by Brexit are a big problem.
You are lucky not to be one perhaps.
If the politicians we have fuck it up then they will face the ballot box and can be removed.
That's democracy.
And in stark contrast to the EU....
1. European Parliament - elected 2. European Council - elected heads of government 3. Council of the European Union - elected ministers of government 4. European Commission - nominated by 3 and approved en bloc by 1 5. Court of Justice of the European Union, 6. European Central Bank and 7. Court of Auditors - do you really think these officials should be directly elected by the electorate?
There you go, bothering Leavers with facts. They just want to be left alone with their truthiness.
Does anyone really think that Corbyn is saying that they don't have a right to exist, are not a democracy etc? He is making the point that they push hard for positive comments about Israel which influences the reporting of their current behaviour.
Oh come on. The 'right to exist' is something which not expressed by any other nation, and Corbyn is clearly questioning it. It shouldn't be something which is even in mind, and yet Corbyn has a issue with it.
It is a point that Israel pushes for the very obvious reason that it reminds people that they are surrounded by states at least nominally committed to wiping Israel off the map. It is a valid point but they go too far in seeking to justify their extreme behaviour towards Gaza and the West Bank by reference to it.
Do you seriously dispute that Israeli spokesmen emphasise that they are a democracy surrounded by dictators and theocracies committed to destroy them and that their actions should be looked at in that context? Of course they do, why wouldn't they?
Which is why it is seriously dumb of them to pass laws that undermine that moral high ground.
It's a problem because the politicians we currently have are going to fuck it up.
For many, many people the privations caused by Brexit are a big problem.
You are lucky not to be one perhaps.
If the politicians we have fuck it up then they will face the ballot box and can be removed.
That's democracy.
And in stark contrast to the EU....
1. European Parliament - elected 2. European Council - elected heads of government 3. Council of the European Union - elected ministers of government 4. European Commission - nominated by 3 and approved en bloc by 1 5. Court of Justice of the European Union, 6. European Central Bank and 7. Court of Auditors - do you really think these officials should be directly elected by the electorate?
There you go, bothering Leavers with facts. They just want to be left alone with their truthiness.
Do you agree with TSE that "Hitler's Germany was a democracy"?
Stretching the facts a bit too far there, methinks!
It's a problem because the politicians we currently have are going to fuck it up.
For many, many people the privations caused by Brexit are a big problem.
You are lucky not to be one perhaps.
If the politicians we have fuck it up then they will face the ballot box and can be removed.
That's democracy.
And in stark contrast to the EU....
1. European Parliament - elected 2. European Council - elected heads of government 3. Council of the European Union - elected ministers of government 4. European Commission - nominated by 3 and approved en bloc by 1 5. Court of Justice of the European Union, 6. European Central Bank and 7. Court of Auditors - do you really think these officials should be directly elected by the electorate?
One of the problems with Juncker's election (along with his drunkenness, stupidity and unfortunate record on tax-related matters) is that he was nominated by 1 and confirmed by 3, reversing this process. Had the nomination been up to the Council, he would not even have been in the frame.
It's a problem because the politicians we currently have are going to fuck it up.
For many, many people the privations caused by Brexit are a big problem.
You are lucky not to be one perhaps.
If the politicians we have fuck it up then they will face the ballot box and can be removed.
That's democracy.
And in stark contrast to the EU....
1. European Parliament - elected 2. European Council - elected heads of government 3. Council of the European Union - elected ministers of government 4. European Commission - nominated by 3 and approved en bloc by 1 5. Court of Justice of the European Union, 6. European Central Bank and 7. Court of Auditors - do you really think these officials should be directly elected by the electorate?
And my ability as a voter to change those is.....zero? Or so close to zero as makes no difference?
To be fair to Boris (not a sentence I thought I'd say), I think his burqa comments fall into the "juvenile and stupid" category more than they do "racist". After all, it's not like a comparison to a letterbox is a commonly racist trope to my knowledge (though the comparison to a bank-robber is more questionable).
That said, I can't help but notice there's some PBers who've been very silent on this topic, who I'm 100% convinced would've been in paroxysms of outrage if a Labour activist had been discovered to have tweeted some mocking comments about Orthodox Jewish dress.
You can see Steve Bannon's approach already. Politicians will queue up to denounce Boris Johnson's remarks, only to find out time and again that the public have a much more robust view of what can be discussed. The idea is to cement Boris Johnson as the next Trump.
I do not dispute his right to say it. It confirms my assessment of him as a man with very poor judgment, very little discipline and completely unsuited to serious office though. But then, we all know that by now anyway.
To be fair to Boris (not a sentence I thought I'd say), I think his burqa comments fall into the "juvenile and stupid" category more than they do "racist". After all, it's not like a comparison to a letterbox is a commonly racist trope to my knowledge (though the comparison to a bank-robber is more questionable).
That said, I can't help but notice there's some PBers who've been very silent on this topic, who I'm 100% convinced would've been in paroxysms of outrage if a Labour activist had been discovered to have tweeted some mocking comments about Orthodox Jewish dress.
You can see Steve Bannon's approach already. Politicians will queue up to denounce Boris Johnson's remarks, only to find out time and again that the public have a much more robust view of what can be discussed. The idea is to cement Boris Johnson as the next Trump.
A bit of Islamophobia may help him with Tory party members, but I like to think it will hurt him with the MPs he needs to get into the final 2.
To be fair to Boris (not a sentence I thought I'd say), I think his burqa comments fall into the "juvenile and stupid" category more than they do "racist". After all, it's not like a comparison to a letterbox is a commonly racist trope to my knowledge (though the comparison to a bank-robber is more questionable).
That said, I can't help but notice there's some PBers who've been very silent on this topic, who I'm 100% convinced would've been in paroxysms of outrage if a Labour activist had been discovered to have tweeted some mocking comments about Orthodox Jewish dress.
The last paragraph is not unreasonable. I've been very critical of Labour over their current 'problem' and haven't mentioned Boris. So....
Boris is a dog-whistling waste of oxygen, and his remarks are all the worse for being carefully calculated rather than purely a throw-away quip. It retoxifies the Tories, creates more instability and is 100% selfish. Were he to - god forbid - be elected leader then under no circumstances would I vote for his party.
[I would also note there's an absence of hysterical hate and bullying from pro-Boris supporters over criticism of him. He has his supporters, sadly, but the difference in behaviour between them and the Momentum Horde is stark.]
To be fair to Boris (not a sentence I thought I'd say), I think his burqa comments fall into the "juvenile and stupid" category more than they do "racist". After all, it's not like a comparison to a letterbox is a commonly racist trope to my knowledge (though the comparison to a bank-robber is more questionable).
That said, I can't help but notice there's some PBers who've been very silent on this topic, who I'm 100% convinced would've been in paroxysms of outrage if a Labour activist had been discovered to have tweeted some mocking comments about Orthodox Jewish dress.
You can see Steve Bannon's approach already. Politicians will queue up to denounce Boris Johnson's remarks, only to find out time and again that the public have a much more robust view of what can be discussed. The idea is to cement Boris Johnson as the next Trump.
A bit of Islamophobia may help him with Tory party members, but I like to think it will hurt him with the MPs he needs to get into the final 2.
Hard to imagine he could fall much further than he already has among MPs. It could however damage the Tory party more widely among the general public who are not anti-Muslim fanatics, much as Corbyn's dithering over anti-Semitism is with Labour.
Had the nomination been up to the Council, he would not even have been in the frame.
I take it you canvassed all the EU leaders personally in order to reach that conclusion?
Of course.
Frau Merkel said, 'e's a fuckwit love, but not as big a fuckwit as Sauckel.' She was drinking a port and lemon and smoking a Panama cigar at the time. Disgusting combination.
That's precisely what many in "the greatest generation" did. They sacrificed their lives to ensure we could be a free democracy.
I'm not prepared to throw away their sacrifice on the altar of potentially avoiding a one off recession.
So yes. Democracy and freedom are worth the loss of life. A recession is not.
Mental and utterly unspoofable.
Hitler’s Germany was a democracy too.
Just saying.
Are you sure about that?
He won an election in 1933.
1) That depends on your definition of win (could a Labour supporter helpfully say that May didn't win last year)?
2) He was never actually elected to the office of President as required by Weimar which is where he technically derived his power from. On the only occasion he stood he came a poor second to an 84 year old war hero. He was appointed Reichkanzler by the president (which didn't require him to have a majority in the Reichstag) he simply assumed the office of President, merging it with the Chancellorship and creating the new office of 'Fuhrer;'
3) The election of 1933 was agreed to be the last election by the cabinet as a whole, of which only three members were Nazis ('any return to the Democratic system is to be absolutely avoided').
4) Subsequent plebiscites and elections (1934, 1936 and 1938) were marked by massive fraud and intimidation and offered no choice of candidates, and the questions offered only approval or disapproval of actions already taken - Hitler's assumption of the Presidency, the reoccupation of the Rhineland, and the Anschluss with Austria.
4) All other parties were banned and laws were passed by decree.
Not seeing this democracy lark.
I’ll do a thread this weekend pointing out the similarities between the 1933 German election and the 2016 referendum.
That's precisely what many in "the greatest generation" did. They sacrificed their lives to ensure we could be a free democracy.
I'm not prepared to throw away their sacrifice on the altar of potentially avoiding a one off recession.
So yes. Democracy and freedom are worth the loss of life. A recession is not.
Mental and utterly unspoofable.
Hitler’s Germany was a democracy too.
Just saying.
Are you sure about that?
He won an election in 1933.
1) That depends on your definition of win (could a Labour supporter helpfully say that May didn't win last year)?
2) He was never actually elected to the office of President as required by Weimar which is where he technically derived his power from. On the only occasion he stood he came a poor second to an 84 year old war hero. He was appointed Reichkanzler by the president (which didn't require him to have a majority in the Reichstag) he simply assumed the office of President, merging it with the Chancellorship and creating the new office of 'Fuhrer;'
3) The election of 1933 was agreed to be the last election by the cabinet as a whole, of which only three members were Nazis ('any return to the Democratic system is to be absolutely avoided').
4) Subsequent plebiscites and elections (1934, 1936 and 1938) were marked by massive fraud and intimidation and offered no choice of candidates, and the questions offered only approval or disapproval of actions already taken - Hitler's assumption of the Presidency, the reoccupation of the Rhineland, and the Anschluss with Austria.
4) All other parties were banned and laws were passed by decree.
Not seeing this democracy lark.
I’ll do a thread this weekend pointing out the similarities between the 1933 German election and the 2016 referendum.
That's precisely what many in "the greatest generation" did. They sacrificed their lives to ensure we could be a free democracy.
I'm not prepared to throw away their sacrifice on the altar of potentially avoiding a one off recession.
So yes. Democracy and freedom are worth the loss of life. A recession is not.
Mental and utterly unspoofable.
Hitler’s Germany was a democracy too.
Just saying.
Are you sure about that?
He won an election in 1933.
1) That depends on your definition of win (could a Labour supporter helpfully say that May didn't win last year)?
2) He was never actually elected to the office of President as required by Weimar which is where he technically derived his power from. On the only occasion he stood he came a poor second to an 84 year old war hero. He was appointed Reichkanzler by the president (which didn't require him to have a majority in the Reichstag) he simply assumed the office of President, merging it with the Chancellorship and creating the new office of 'Fuhrer;'
3) The election of 1933 was agreed to be the last election by the cabinet as a whole, of which only three members were Nazis ('any return to the Democratic system is to be absolutely avoided').
4) Subsequent plebiscites and elections (1934, 1936 and 1938) were marked by massive fraud and intimidation and offered no choice of candidates, and the questions offered only approval or disapproval of actions already taken - Hitler's assumption of the Presidency, the reoccupation of the Rhineland, and the Anschluss with Austria.
4) All other parties were banned and laws were passed by decree.
Not seeing this democracy lark.
I’ll do a thread this weekend pointing out the similarities between the 1933 German election and the 2016 referendum.
Does anyone really think that Corbyn is saying that they don't have a right to exist, are not a democracy etc? He is making the point that they push hard for positive comments about Israel which influences the reporting of their current behaviour.
Oh come on. The 'right to exist' is something which not expressed by any other nation, and Corbyn is clearly questioning it. It shouldn't be something which is even in mind, and yet Corbyn has a issue with it.
It is a point that Israel pushes for the very obvious reason that it reminds people that they are surrounded by states at least nominally committed to wiping Israel off the map. It is a valid point but they go too far in seeking to justify their extreme behaviour towards Gaza and the West Bank by reference to it.
Do you seriously dispute that Israeli spokesmen emphasise that they are a democracy surrounded by dictators and theocracies committed to destroy them and that their actions should be looked at in that context? Of course they do, why wouldn't they?
Which is why it is seriously dumb of them to pass laws that undermine that moral high ground.
Back in the unhappy days when I did divorce work you used to come across violent spouses who were furious with their spouse because of what they had "made" them do. They were ashamed of their behaviour but blamed the other for provoking it. Sometimes, non pc though it is to say this, there was even an element of truth in their accusations. Some people did get off on the drama of it all. Of course that did not excuse their behaviour, nothing did. It is, unfortunately, a very good analogy for Israel in recent decades.
To be fair to Boris (not a sentence I thought I'd say), I think his burqa comments fall into the "juvenile and stupid" category more than they do "racist". After all, it's not like a comparison to a letterbox is a commonly racist trope to my knowledge (though the comparison to a bank-robber is more questionable).
That said, I can't help but notice there's some PBers who've been very silent on this topic, who I'm 100% convinced would've been in paroxysms of outrage if a Labour activist had been discovered to have tweeted some mocking comments about Orthodox Jewish dress.
The last paragraph is not unreasonable. I've been very critical of Labour over their current 'problem' and haven't mentioned Boris. So....
Boris is a dog-whistling waste of oxygen, and his remarks are all the worse for being carefully calculated rather than purely a throw-away quip. It retoxifies the Tories, creates more instability and is 100% selfish. Were he to - god forbid - be elected leader then under no circumstances would I vote for his party.
[I would also note there's an absence of hysterical hate and bullying from pro-Boris supporters over criticism of him. He has his supporters, sadly, but the difference in behaviour between them and the Momentum Horde is stark.]
I think that he has demonstrated that he is unfit to hold high office.
To be fair to Boris (not a sentence I thought I'd say), I think his burqa comments fall into the "juvenile and stupid" category more than they do "racist". After all, it's not like a comparison to a letterbox is a commonly racist trope to my knowledge (though the comparison to a bank-robber is more questionable).
That said, I can't help but notice there's some PBers who've been very silent on this topic, who I'm 100% convinced would've been in paroxysms of outrage if a Labour activist had been discovered to have tweeted some mocking comments about Orthodox Jewish dress.
It was utter stupid and offensive. Boris is a buffoon.
Having said that, I do not like the Burka. It it in my opinion a clear method of oppression towards women.
I have no issue with a headscarf or modest clothing to a certain degree.
I agree with all that - but one should also note that the burka is clothing to which quite a few Moslem women are genuinely committed. Disapproving and arguing against is fine; mocking is in extremely poor taste, particularly when indulged in by a public figure; banning is plain wrong.
Does anyone really think that Corbyn is saying that they don't have a right to exist, are not a democracy etc? He is making the point that they push hard for positive comments about Israel which influences the reporting of their current behaviour.
Oh come on. The 'right to exist' is something which not expressed by any other nation, and Corbyn is clearly questioning it. It shouldn't be something which is even in mind, and yet Corbyn has a issue with it.
It is a point that Israel pushes for the very obvious reason that it reminds people that they are surrounded by states at least nominally committed to wiping Israel off the map. It is a valid point but they go too far in seeking to justify their extreme behaviour towards Gaza and the West Bank by reference to it.
Do you seriously dispute that Israeli spokesmen emphasise that they are a democracy surrounded by dictators and theocracies committed to destroy them and that their actions should be looked at in that context? Of course they do, why wouldn't they?
Which is why it is seriously dumb of them to pass laws that undermine that moral high ground.
Back in the unhappy days when I did divorce work you used to come across violent spouses who were furious with their spouse because of what they had "made" them do. They were ashamed of their behaviour but blamed the other for provoking it. Sometimes, non pc though it is to say this, there was even an element of truth in their accusations. Some people did get off on the drama of it all. Of course that did not excuse their behaviour, nothing did. It is, unfortunately, a very good analogy for Israel in recent decades.
A better analogy could be developed. Say, a violent marriage ending in divorce where they still have to live in the same house and share utility bills.
I can't imagine any cases you saw along those lines (if you ever did!) ended well.
That's precisely what many in "the greatest generation" did. They sacrificed their lives to ensure we could be a free democracy.
I'm not prepared to throw away their sacrifice on the altar of potentially avoiding a one off recession.
So yes. Democracy and freedom are worth the loss of life. A recession is not.
Mental and utterly unspoofable.
Hitler’s Germany was a democracy too.
Just saying.
Are you sure about that?
He won an election in 1933.
1) That depends on your definition of win (could a Labour supporter helpfully say that May didn't win last year)?
2) He was never actually elected to the office of President as required by Weimar which is where he technically derived his power from. On the only occasion he stood he came a poor second to an 84 year old war hero. He was appointed Reichkanzler by the president (which didn't require him to have a majority in the Reichstag) he simply assumed the office of President, merging it with the Chancellorship and creating the new office of 'Fuhrer;'
3) The election of 1933 was agreed to be the last election by the cabinet as a whole, of which only three members were Nazis ('any return to the Democratic system is to be absolutely avoided').
4) Subsequent plebiscites and elections (1934, 1936 and 1938) were marked by massive fraud and intimidation and offered no choice of candidates, and the questions offered only approval or disapproval of actions already taken - Hitler's assumption of the Presidency, the reoccupation of the Rhineland, and the Anschluss with Austria.
4) All other parties were banned and laws were passed by decree.
Not seeing this democracy lark.
I’ll do a thread this weekend pointing out the similarities between the 1933 German election and the 2016 referendum.
That should clear things up.
Ah, a wind up.
If only they had been. Neither went like clockwork.
It's a problem because the politicians we currently have are going to fuck it up.
For many, many people the privations caused by Brexit are a big problem.
You are lucky not to be one perhaps.
If the politicians we have fuck it up then they will face the ballot box and can be removed.
That's democracy.
And in stark contrast to the EU....
1. European Parliament - elected 2. European Council - elected heads of government 3. Council of the European Union - elected ministers of government 4. European Commission - nominated by 3 and approved en bloc by 1 5. Court of Justice of the European Union, 6. European Central Bank and 7. Court of Auditors - do you really think these officials should be directly elected by the electorate?
And my ability as a voter to change those is.....zero? Or so close to zero as makes no difference?
It's a problem because the politicians we currently have are going to fuck it up.
For many, many people the privations caused by Brexit are a big problem.
You are lucky not to be one perhaps.
If the politicians we have fuck it up then they will face the ballot box and can be removed.
That's democracy.
And in stark contrast to the EU....
1. European Parliament - elected 2. European Council - elected heads of government 3. Council of the European Union - elected ministers of government 4. European Commission - nominated by 3 and approved en bloc by 1 5. Court of Justice of the European Union, 6. European Central Bank and 7. Court of Auditors - do you really think these officials should be directly elected by the electorate?
And my ability as a voter to change those is.....zero? Or so close to zero as makes no difference?
Whereas in your safe constituency in the UK...
As it happens, his constituency was a marginal, until 2017, and might be again.
That's precisely what many in "the greatest generation" did. They sacrificed their lives to ensure we could be a free democracy.
I'm not prepared to throw away their sacrifice on the altar of potentially avoiding a one off recession.
So yes. Democracy and freedom are worth the loss of life. A recession is not.
Mental and utterly unspoofable.
Hitler’s Germany was a democracy too.
Just saying.
Are you sure about that?
He won an election in 1933.
1) That depends on your definition of win (could a Labour supporter helpfully say that May didn't win last year)?
2) He was never actually elected to the office of President as required by Weimar which is where he technically derived his power from. On the only occasion he stood he came a poor second to an 84 year old war hero. He was appointed Reichkanzler by the president (which didn't require him to have a majority in the Reichstag) he simply assumed the office of President, merging it with the Chancellorship and creating the new office of 'Fuhrer;'
3) The election of 1933 was agreed to be the last election by the cabinet as a whole, of which only three members were Nazis ('any return to the Democratic system is to be absolutely avoided').
4) Subsequent plebiscites and elections (1934, 1936 and 1938) were marked by massive fraud and intimidation and offered no choice of candidates, and the questions offered only approval or disapproval of actions already taken - Hitler's assumption of the Presidency, the reoccupation of the Rhineland, and the Anschluss with Austria.
4) All other parties were banned and laws were passed by decree.
Not seeing this democracy lark.
I’ll do a thread this weekend pointing out the similarities between the 1933 German election and the 2016 referendum.
Does anyone really think that Corbyn is saying that they don't have a right to exist, are not a democracy etc? He is making the point that they push hard for positive comments about Israel which influences the reporting of their current behaviour.
Oh come on. The 'right to exist' is something which not expressed by any other nation, and Corbyn is clearly questioning it. It shouldn't be something which is even in mind, and yet Corbyn has a issue with it.
It is a point that Israel pushes for the very obvious reason that it reminds people that they are surrounded by states at least nominally committed to wiping Israel off the map. It is a valid point but they go too far in seeking to justify their extreme behaviour towards Gaza and the West Bank by reference to it.
Do you seriously dispute that Israeli spokesmen emphasise that they are a democracy surrounded by dictators and theocracies committed to destroy them and that their actions should be looked at in that context? Of course they do, why wouldn't they?
Which is why it is seriously dumb of them to pass laws that undermine that moral high ground.
Back in the unhappy days when I did divorce work you used to come across violent spouses who were furious with their spouse because of what they had "made" them do. They were ashamed of their behaviour but blamed the other for provoking it. Sometimes, non pc though it is to say this, there was even an element of truth in their accusations. Some people did get off on the drama of it all. Of course that did not excuse their behaviour, nothing did. It is, unfortunately, a very good analogy for Israel in recent decades.
A better analogy could be developed. Say, a violent marriage ending in divorce where they still have to live in the same house and share utility bills.
I can't imagine any cases you saw along those lines (if you ever did!) ended well.
Oh I did. Exclusion orders etc are quite a middle class thing because they can afford to get somewhere else. Among poorer people who were struggling to pay 1 rent or mortgage the reality was that separation under the same roof was often a practical necessity. And no, it usually didn't end well.
That's precisely what many in "the greatest generation" did. They sacrificed their lives to ensure we could be a free democracy.
I'm not prepared to throw away their sacrifice on the altar of potentially avoiding a one off recession.
So yes. Democracy and freedom are worth the loss of life. A recession is not.
Mental and utterly unspoofable.
Hitler’s Germany was a democracy too.
Just saying.
Are you sure about that?
He won an election in 1933.
1) That depends on your definition of win (could a Labour supporter helpfully say that May didn't win last year)?
2) He was never actually elected to the office of President as required by Weimar which is where he technically derived his power from. On the only occasion he stood he came a poor second to an 84 year old war hero. He was appointed Reichkanzler by the president (which didn't require him to have a majority in the Reichstag) he simply assumed the office of President, merging it with the Chancellorship and creating the new office of 'Fuhrer;'
3) The election of 1933 was agreed to be the last election by the cabinet as a whole, of which only three members were Nazis ('any return to the Democratic system is to be absolutely avoided').
4) Subsequent plebiscites and elections (1934, 1936 and 1938) were marked by massive fraud and intimidation and offered no choice of candidates, and the questions offered only approval or disapproval of actions already taken - Hitler's assumption of the Presidency, the reoccupation of the Rhineland, and the Anschluss with Austria.
4) All other parties were banned and laws were passed by decree.
Not seeing this democracy lark.
I’ll do a thread this weekend pointing out the similarities between the 1933 German election and the 2016 referendum.
That should clear things up.
Should they have been fought under AV?
All elections under the Nazis were.
The first choice was to vote for the Nazis.
The alternative was to be beaten up by the SA.
Until Hitler purged the SA!
Even after that they were still used to intimidate political opponents. In particular Hitler found them useful for beating up and harassing Jews.
Had the nomination been up to the Council, he would not even have been in the frame.
I take it you canvassed all the EU leaders personally in order to reach that conclusion?
Of course.
Frau Merkel said, 'e's a fuckwit love, but not as big a fuckwit as Sauckel.' She was drinking a port and lemon and smoking a Panama cigar at the time. Disgusting combination.
Confirms all my worst suspicions. I won't say about who!
Does anyone really think that Corbyn is saying that they don't have a right to exist, are not a democracy etc? He is making the point that they push hard for positive comments about Israel which influences the reporting of their current behaviour.
Oh come on. The 'right to exist' is something which not expressed by any other nation, and Corbyn is clearly questioning it. It shouldn't be something which is even in mind, and yet Corbyn has a issue with it.
It is a point that Israel pushes for the very obvious reason that it reminds people that they are surrounded by states at least nominally committed to wiping Israel off the map. It is a valid point but they go too far in seeking to justify their extreme behaviour towards Gaza and the West Bank by reference to it.
Do you seriously dispute that Israeli spokesmen emphasise that they are a democracy surrounded by dictators and theocracies committed to destroy them and that their actions should be looked at in that context? Of course they do, why wouldn't they?
Which is why it is seriously dumb of them to pass laws that undermine that moral high ground.
Yes it seems ill-advised to say the least.
But there are shades of Plan D(alet). At some point they might have thought if we are being accused of some act which we are not doing, we might as well do it and become the aggressors.
Had the nomination been up to the Council, he would not even have been in the frame.
I take it you canvassed all the EU leaders personally in order to reach that conclusion?
Of course.
Frau Merkel said, 'e's a fuckwit love, but not as big a fuckwit as Sauckel.' She was drinking a port and lemon and smoking a Panama cigar at the time. Disgusting combination.
Confirms all my worst suspicions. I won't say about who!
Speaking of worst suspicions, however bad it looks for Stokes I don't think this bouncer is exactly covering himself in glory.
To be fair to Boris (not a sentence I thought I'd say), I think his burqa comments fall into the "juvenile and stupid" category more than they do "racist". After all, it's not like a comparison to a letterbox is a commonly racist trope to my knowledge (though the comparison to a bank-robber is more questionable).
That said, I can't help but notice there's some PBers who've been very silent on this topic, who I'm 100% convinced would've been in paroxysms of outrage if a Labour activist had been discovered to have tweeted some mocking comments about Orthodox Jewish dress.
The last paragraph is not unreasonable. I've been very critical of Labour over their current 'problem' and haven't mentioned Boris. So....
Boris is a dog-whistling waste of oxygen, and his remarks are all the worse for being carefully calculated rather than purely a throw-away quip. It retoxifies the Tories, creates more instability and is 100% selfish. Were he to - god forbid - be elected leader then under no circumstances would I vote for his party.
[I would also note there's an absence of hysterical hate and bullying from pro-Boris supporters over criticism of him. He has his supporters, sadly, but the difference in behaviour between them and the Momentum Horde is stark.]
I think that he has demonstrated that he is unfit to hold high office.
To be fair to Boris (not a sentence I thought I'd say), I think his burqa comments fall into the "juvenile and stupid" category more than they do "racist". After all, it's not like a comparison to a letterbox is a commonly racist trope to my knowledge (though the comparison to a bank-robber is more questionable).
That said, I can't help but notice there's some PBers who've been very silent on this topic, who I'm 100% convinced would've been in paroxysms of outrage if a Labour activist had been discovered to have tweeted some mocking comments about Orthodox Jewish dress.
The last paragraph is not unreasonable. I've been very critical of Labour over their current 'problem' and haven't mentioned Boris. So....
Boris is a dog-whistling waste of oxygen, and his remarks are all the worse for being carefully calculated rather than purely a throw-away quip. It retoxifies the Tories, creates more instability and is 100% selfish. Were he to - god forbid - be elected leader then under no circumstances would I vote for his party.
[I would also note there's an absence of hysterical hate and bullying from pro-Boris supporters over criticism of him. He has his supporters, sadly, but the difference in behaviour between them and the Momentum Horde is stark.]
I think that he has demonstrated that he is unfit to hold high office.
Had the nomination been up to the Council, he would not even have been in the frame.
I take it you canvassed all the EU leaders personally in order to reach that conclusion?
Of course.
Frau Merkel said, 'e's a fuckwit love, but not as big a fuckwit as Sauckel.' She was drinking a port and lemon and smoking a Panama cigar at the time. Disgusting combination.
Confirms all my worst suspicions. I won't say about who!
Speaking of worst suspicions, however bad it looks for Stokes I don't think this bouncer is exactly covering himself in glory.
No, but his evidence is hardly central. He really just puts Stokes at the scene and in a bad mood (ie slightly under the influence).
To be fair to Boris (not a sentence I thought I'd say), I think his burqa comments fall into the "juvenile and stupid" category more than they do "racist". After all, it's not like a comparison to a letterbox is a commonly racist trope to my knowledge (though the comparison to a bank-robber is more questionable).
That said, I can't help but notice there's some PBers who've been very silent on this topic, who I'm 100% convinced would've been in paroxysms of outrage if a Labour activist had been discovered to have tweeted some mocking comments about Orthodox Jewish dress.
You can see Steve Bannon's approach already. Politicians will queue up to denounce Boris Johnson's remarks, only to find out time and again that the public have a much more robust view of what can be discussed. The idea is to cement Boris Johnson as the next Trump.
I do not dispute his right to say it. It confirms my assessment of him as a man with very poor judgment, very little discipline and completely unsuited to serious office though. But then, we all know that by now anyway.
I have to say that the Burkha is an absolutely ridiculous piece of clothing and if women are forced to wear it then I consider that wrong.
Had the nomination been up to the Council, he would not even have been in the frame.
I take it you canvassed all the EU leaders personally in order to reach that conclusion?
Of course.
Frau Merkel said, 'e's a fuckwit love, but not as big a fuckwit as Sauckel.' She was drinking a port and lemon and smoking a Panama cigar at the time. Disgusting combination.
Confirms all my worst suspicions. I won't say about who!
Speaking of worst suspicions, however bad it looks for Stokes I don't think this bouncer is exactly covering himself in glory.
No, but his evidence is hardly central. He really just puts Stokes at the scene and in a bad mood (ie slightly under the influence).
Are we allowed to discuss it? It seems a very convoluted round robin of drunkenness and loutish behaviour by all parties. What worries me is the reported Stokes' uninhibited actions before it all kicked off.
To be fair to Boris (not a sentence I thought I'd say), I think his burqa comments fall into the "juvenile and stupid" category more than they do "racist". After all, it's not like a comparison to a letterbox is a commonly racist trope to my knowledge (though the comparison to a bank-robber is more questionable).
That said, I can't help but notice there's some PBers who've been very silent on this topic, who I'm 100% convinced would've been in paroxysms of outrage if a Labour activist had been discovered to have tweeted some mocking comments about Orthodox Jewish dress.
You can see Steve Bannon's approach already. Politicians will queue up to denounce Boris Johnson's remarks, only to find out time and again that the public have a much more robust view of what can be discussed. The idea is to cement Boris Johnson as the next Trump.
I do not dispute his right to say it. It confirms my assessment of him as a man with very poor judgment, very little discipline and completely unsuited to serious office though. But then, we all know that by now anyway.
I have to say that the Burkha is an absolutely ridiculous piece of clothing and if women are forced to wear it then I consider that wrong.
I agree. But I also think it is wrong to ban them from doing so. Determining whether they have chosen to do so or are being forced to do so is the tricky bit.
To be fair to Boris (not a sentence I thought I'd say), I think his burqa comments fall into the "juvenile and stupid" category more than they do "racist". After all, it's not like a comparison to a letterbox is a commonly racist trope to my knowledge (though the comparison to a bank-robber is more questionable).
That said, I can't help but notice there's some PBers who've been very silent on this topic, who I'm 100% convinced would've been in paroxysms of outrage if a Labour activist had been discovered to have tweeted some mocking comments about Orthodox Jewish dress.
You can see Steve Bannon's approach already. Politicians will queue up to denounce Boris Johnson's remarks, only to find out time and again that the public have a much more robust view of what can be discussed. The idea is to cement Boris Johnson as the next Trump.
I do not dispute his right to say it. It confirms my assessment of him as a man with very poor judgment, very little discipline and completely unsuited to serious office though. But then, we all know that by now anyway.
I have to say that the Burkha is an absolutely ridiculous piece of clothing and if women are forced to wear it then I consider that wrong.
On the other hand, when I have fourteen year old girls coming to me in tears because someone has shouted sexual abuse at them and threatened to rape them in the street, I do start to understand why there are indeed women out there who prefer to look like a moving pillar box.
The issue is if they are forced to wear it when they don't want to.
To be fair to Boris (not a sentence I thought I'd say), I think his burqa comments fall into the "juvenile and stupid" category more than they do "racist". After all, it's not like a comparison to a letterbox is a commonly racist trope to my knowledge (though the comparison to a bank-robber is more questionable).
That said, I can't help but notice there's some PBers who've been very silent on this topic, who I'm 100% convinced would've been in paroxysms of outrage if a Labour activist had been discovered to have tweeted some mocking comments about Orthodox Jewish dress.
You can see Steve Bannon's approach already. Politicians will queue up to denounce Boris Johnson's remarks, only to find out time and again that the public have a much more robust view of what can be discussed. The idea is to cement Boris Johnson as the next Trump.
I do not dispute his right to say it. It confirms my assessment of him as a man with very poor judgment, very little discipline and completely unsuited to serious office though. But then, we all know that by now anyway.
I have to say that the Burkha is an absolutely ridiculous piece of clothing and if women are forced to wear it then I consider that wrong.
I agree. But I also think it is wrong to ban them from doing so. Determining whether they have chosen to do so or are being forced to do so is the tricky bit.
I really cannot imagine its a high percentage of Burkha wearers who wear such an outfit by choice.
Had the nomination been up to the Council, he would not even have been in the frame.
I take it you canvassed all the EU leaders personally in order to reach that conclusion?
Of course.
Frau Merkel said, 'e's a fuckwit love, but not as big a fuckwit as Sauckel.' She was drinking a port and lemon and smoking a Panama cigar at the time. Disgusting combination.
Confirms all my worst suspicions. I won't say about who!
Speaking of worst suspicions, however bad it looks for Stokes I don't think this bouncer is exactly covering himself in glory.
No, but his evidence is hardly central. He really just puts Stokes at the scene and in a bad mood (ie slightly under the influence).
Are we allowed to discuss it? It seems a very convoluted round robin of drunkenness and loutish behaviour by all parties. What worries me is the reported Stokes' uninhibited actions before it all kicked off.
"Uninhibited" is a good word. It is also a concern that Alex Hales was so obviously trying to restrain him both at the start and indeed later. The gay couple may prove to be important witnesses.
IANAE on the English laws of sub judicie but I think the essence is anything that can or might be thought to imperil the conduct of the trial. The Jury have already been directed twice by the Judge to disregard everything on social media and decide the case on the basis of what they hear in the Court. I think that makes it safe enough otherwise the likes of Sky would not be giving us a blow by blow account.
Had the nomination been up to the Council, he would not even have been in the frame.
I take it you canvassed all the EU leaders personally in order to reach that conclusion?
Of course.
Frau Merkel said, 'e's a fuckwit love, but not as big a fuckwit as Sauckel.' She was drinking a port and lemon and smoking a Panama cigar at the time. Disgusting combination.
Confirms all my worst suspicions. I won't say about who!
Speaking of worst suspicions, however bad it looks for Stokes I don't think this bouncer is exactly covering himself in glory.
No, but his evidence is hardly central. He really just puts Stokes at the scene and in a bad mood (ie slightly under the influence).
He's coming across as a bouncer I'd say - sense of humour bypass, apparently misses someone going into the club; sticks to the rules on a matter that could cost him his license, not a great memory of whether or not he'd seen the CCTV or not. This sort of unimaginative dullard is not a witness you particularly want against yourself as Andrew Mitchell found out to his cost.
Comments
That should clear things up.
Do you seriously dispute that Israeli spokesmen emphasise that they are a democracy surrounded by dictators and theocracies committed to destroy them and that their actions should be looked at in that context? Of course they do, why wouldn't they?
2. European Council - elected heads of government
3. Council of the European Union - elected ministers of government
4. European Commission - nominated by 3 and approved en bloc by 1
5. Court of Justice of the European Union, 6. European Central Bank and 7. Court of Auditors - do you really think these officials should be directly elected by the electorate?
Stretching the facts a bit too far there, methinks!
Boris is a dog-whistling waste of oxygen, and his remarks are all the worse for being carefully calculated rather than purely a throw-away quip. It retoxifies the Tories, creates more instability and is 100% selfish. Were he to - god forbid - be elected leader then under no circumstances would I vote for his party.
[I would also note there's an absence of hysterical hate and bullying from pro-Boris supporters over criticism of him. He has his supporters, sadly, but the difference in behaviour between them and the Momentum Horde is stark.]
Frau Merkel said, 'e's a fuckwit love, but not as big a fuckwit as Sauckel.' She was drinking a port and lemon and smoking a Panama cigar at the time. Disgusting combination.
The first choice was to vote for the Nazis.
The alternative was to be beaten up by the SA.
I can't imagine any cases you saw along those lines (if you ever did!) ended well.
But there are shades of Plan D(alet). At some point they might have thought if we are being accused of some act which we are not doing, we might as well do it and become the aggressors.
(that will be a low-calorie arma....)
https://sortedfood.com/recipe/chickenballotine
I'll get my coat...
The issue is if they are forced to wear it when they don't want to.
NEW THREAD
IANAE on the English laws of sub judicie but I think the essence is anything that can or might be thought to imperil the conduct of the trial. The Jury have already been directed twice by the Judge to disregard everything on social media and decide the case on the basis of what they hear in the Court. I think that makes it safe enough otherwise the likes of Sky would not be giving us a blow by blow account.
This sort of unimaginative dullard is not a witness you particularly want against yourself as Andrew Mitchell found out to his cost.