I expect the top priority is to stop losing readers at the current rate. The Mail’s circulation figures have been dropping sharply. They’ve lost a quarter of their circulation since 2014. Shooing off the maddest readers to the Express is a bit of a gamble: where are the new readers going to come from?
I think Alistair is doing a bit of early morning self-indulgence exercise here :-D .
The only Remain supporting tabloid, which is the Mirror, has gone down by 40%+ in the same period.
It's not just the editorial line, the Mail has Tom Utley, Richard Littlejohn, AN Wilson and Dominic Lawson, and other pro-Brexit opinion writers that attract and reinforce the line.
I doubt he will ditch all those.
He’ll ditch none of them. The people who buy the Mail buy it because it makes them feel comfortable about the views they hold. That was always Dacre’s genius. He put down on paper what his readers felt. The problem for the Mail is that its readership is dying off. It’s the same for all newspapers. Newspapers are a beast of the 20th century. Now, aggregation will destroy most of them. There’s no copyright on news and anyone can have an opinion. There are too many newspapers and not enough consumers for the product they offer.
B2B, data and analysis is where the profits are these days - believe me.
I don’t agree with that at all. Why is it hubris that Ed Miliband believed in himself but not David or Ed Balls, or Burnham? There’s no guarantee that David Miliband would have won against David Cameron, especially since the anecdotes posted about him by various journalists et al on twitter suggests someone with very bad people skills. He was hardly that charismatic, either.
It’s amazing how moderates will blame everyone but themselves for nominating Corbyn.
Agreed. He thought he'd make a better leader than his brother, so he stood and won, there's nothing wrong with that. Who knows what his brother might have done.
I suppose one use for the Mail is bedding material if you are forced to sleep rough (I'm told the Racing Post is better) but it seems the era of rough sleepers is coming to an end as the Prime Minister has once again decided throwing money from the magic money tree at a problem is the only solution. It's just the sort of thing a centre-left Labour Prime Minister would have done.
Will it "solve" the problem ? It depends on what you see as "the problem". I suspect in the summer you get more people sleeping rough anyway but come the autumn and winter it's really only for the hard-core and to assume all those sleeping rough want four walls and a roof is a misconception. There are plenty of places available for those who want shelter - it's not the Ritz or the forcible opening of homes left empty for months at a time but it's something.
There are a core of rough sleepers who, for various reasons, prefer to be on the streets. I'm not saying there aren't serious mental health issues at play and the best part of the £100m would be to provide that mental health support and care (I believe, although again it's anecdotal a disproportionate percentage of rough sleepers are ex-servicemen).
I'm afraid this smacks of political gimmickry - more a sense of "we must be seen to be doing something other than Brexit" and finding £100m down the back of Hammond's sofa to throw a little largesse at it. Who will get the money? Charities, local authorities?
I expect the top priority is to stop losing readers at the current rate. The Mail’s circulation figures have been dropping sharply. They’ve lost a quarter of their circulation since 2014. Shooing off the maddest readers to the Express is a bit of a gamble: where are the new readers going to come from?
Online
Well there’s the rub. Were going to see a crisis is the coming years. There is a second wave hitting traditional media. Young people are not picking up the online news habit. Older readers are not being replenished in print AND online. Big impact on some successful online news brands.
Not even all that young. I consume far less traditional news than I did 20 years ago and the news I consume only occasionally comes from British newspapers.
It’s a trend seriously worrying some of my old colleagues.
Newspapers put all their resources into op-ed writers. But opinions are ten a penny. Some idiots even churn them out for free online. There are very few op-ed writers indeed whose thoughts are so profound or whose writing is so beautiful that they are worth paying for.
Newspapers cut all the fact-finders. But facts are harder to come by and what people might actually pay for.
Another problem is that they all cover the same stories - the Guardian, Times, Telegraph etc. have much the same news with varying spin, while less obvious news stories are ignored - that's why we're nearly all struggling to work out what's been happening in Turkey. There is an online market for specialist information - e.g. I have a friend who is on mission to Erbil, so I read the sites specialising in updates on the situation in Kurdish Iraq, to keep an eye on whether she's got anything to worry about.
You can't expect the Times to have a regular reporter in Erbil, but a network of occasional contributors across the world would be a cheap substitute which might gain readers, in the same way that Radio 4 will sometimes draw you into a report on the lives of fishermen in Burkino Faso or something equally esoteric.
This is another aspect of the same problem. They’ve all cut costs so they all cover only the biggest stories. This is one reason why the burqa brouhaha has rumbled on for so long even though few are very interested.
I don’t understand why newspapers didn’t internationalise: if the Guardian, the New York Times etc etc formed a one world alliance they could share journalists and give much more in depth coverage.
That market would quite heavily overlap with the Economist.
In the US, they refer to (for example) Irish Americans. That makes the ethnicity an adjective and the nationality a noun. So, they're Americans who might be tall, and thin, and of Irish ancestry.
In the UK, it's the opposite. They're Asians who happen to be British.
Prefer the American way, personally.
Last year, just before the US Grand Prix Lewis was doing a round of the TV shows promoting the race, in one of the interviews (Ellen DeGeneres?) he was asked asked how he felt being the first African-American F1 star.
I expect the top priority is to stop losing readers at the current rate. The Mail’s circulation figures have been dropping sharply. They’ve lost a quarter of their circulation since 2014. Shooing off the maddest readers to the Express is a bit of a gamble: where are the new readers going to come from?
Online
Well there’s the rub. Were going to see a crisis is the coming years. There is a second wave hitting traditional media. Young people are not picking up the online news habit. Older readers are not being replenished in print AND online. Big impact on some successful online news brands.
Not even all that young. I consume far less traditional news than I did 20 years ago and the news I consume only occasionally comes from British newspapers.
It’s a trend seriously worrying some of my old colleagues.
Newspapers put all their resources into op-ed writers. But opinions are ten a penny. Some idiots even churn them out for free online. There are very few op-ed writers indeed whose thoughts are so profound or whose writing is so beautiful that they are worth paying for.
Newspapers cut all the fact-finders. But facts are harder to come by and what people might actually pay for.
I look forward to Christina Lamb and Tim Shipman in the Sunday Times for precisely that reason, who are both basically the reason I buy the paper.
In the US, they refer to (for example) Irish Americans. That makes the ethnicity an adjective and the nationality a noun. So, they're Americans who might be tall, and thin, and of Irish ancestry.
In the UK, it's the opposite. They're Asians who happen to be British.
Prefer the American way, personally.
Last year, just before the US Grand Prix Lewis was doing a round of the TV shows promoting the race, in one of the interviews (Ellen DeGeneres?) he was asked asked how he felt being the first African-American F1 star.
I suppose one use for the Mail is bedding material if you are forced to sleep rough (I'm told the Racing Post is better) but it seems the era of rough sleepers is coming to an end as the Prime Minister has once again decided throwing money from the magic money tree at a problem is the only solution. It's just the sort of thing a centre-left Labour Prime Minister would have done.
Will it "solve" the problem ? It depends on what you see as "the problem". I suspect in the summer you get more people sleeping rough anyway but come the autumn and winter it's really only for the hard-core and to assume all those sleeping rough want four walls and a roof is a misconception. There are plenty of places available for those who want shelter - it's not the Ritz or the forcible opening of homes left empty for months at a time but it's something.
There are a core of rough sleepers who, for various reasons, prefer to be on the streets. I'm not saying there aren't serious mental health issues at play and the best part of the £100m would be to provide that mental health support and care (I believe, although again it's anecdotal a disproportionate percentage of rough sleepers are ex-servicemen).
I'm afraid this smacks of political gimmickry - more a sense of "we must be seen to be doing something other than Brexit" and finding £100m down the back of Hammond's sofa to throw a little largesse at it. Who will get the money? Charities, local authorities?
I suppose one use for the Mail is bedding material if you are forced to sleep rough (I'm told the Racing Post is better) but it seems the era of rough sleepers is coming to an end as the Prime Minister has once again decided throwing money from the magic money tree at a problem is the only solution. It's just the sort of thing a centre-left Labour Prime Minister would have done.
Will it "solve" the problem ? It depends on what you see as "the problem". I suspect in the summer you get more people sleeping rough anyway but come the autumn and winter it's really only for the hard-core and to assume all those sleeping rough want four walls and a roof is a misconception. There are plenty of places available for those who want shelter - it's not the Ritz or the forcible opening of homes left empty for months at a time but it's something.
There are a core of rough sleepers who, for various reasons, prefer to be on the streets. I'm not saying there aren't serious mental health issues at play and the best part of the £100m would be to provide that mental health support and care (I believe, although again it's anecdotal a disproportionate percentage of rough sleepers are ex-servicemen).
I'm afraid this smacks of political gimmickry - more a sense of "we must be seen to be doing something other than Brexit" and finding £100m down the back of Hammond's sofa to throw a little largesse at it. Who will get the money? Charities, local authorities?
Most of the money will indeed go to help people with drug and mental health problems first before finding them longer term accommodation according to an ST interview with Brokenshire yesterday.
I expect the top priority is to stop losing readers at the current rate. The Mail’s circulation figures have been dropping sharply. They’ve lost a quarter of their circulation since 2014. Shooing off the maddest readers to the Express is a bit of a gamble: where are the new readers going to come from?
Online
Well there’s the rub. Were going to see a crisis is the coming years. There is a second wave hitting traditional media. Young people are not picking up the online news habit. Older readers are not being replenished in print AND online. Big impact on some successful online news brands.
Not even all that young. I consume far less traditional news than I did 20 years ago and the news I consume only occasionally comes from British newspapers.
I'm the same. I read the Times pretty much every day 30 odd years ago at University and then the Indy but I stopped reading papers more than a decade ago. My wife buys the Courier (local) every day and the ST but I rarely open them. It is just so much easier getting the news I am actually interested in online.
I am just not interested in paying for news. If people like me aren't willing to do so newspapers have serious problems and they will have far less political power going forward.
I haven't clicked through to see the details but I wonder what the Graun's model is. It seems to be a voluntary contribution which would surely introduce a free rider problem as the content you do or don't get doesn't appear to be different.
Oh it says you get the app ad free and the crossword. Plus you can see stories you missed. Not sure this is compelling.
I expect the top priority is to stop losing readers at the current rate. The Mail’s circulation figures have been dropping sharply. They’ve lost a quarter of their circulation since 2014. Shooing off the maddest readers to the Express is a bit of a gamble: where are the new readers going to come from?
Online
Well there’s the rub. Were going to see a crisis is the coming years. There is a second wave hitting traditional media. Young people are not picking up the online news habit. Older readers are not being replenished in print AND online. Big impact on some successful online news brands.
I cancelled my daily mail daily delivery and went on line at £9.99 per month.
It is the paper edition but available on line from 11.00pm daily including the sunday mail and it is good to see that the editorial between the daily and sunday mail will become more nuanced and not contradictory.
My wife particularly likes the puzzles
It is not to be confused with mail on line which is not the actual newspaper
I am very pleased if it supports a less aggressive hard Brexit
My mother is a lifelong DM reader, My father favours the DT, myself The Economist.
Paper newspapers cannot keep up with the news, but can be worth reading for the more thoughtful reviews, opinions and magazine articles.
@AlastairMeeks is right though, this is now an international marketplace for news and views, breaking national boundaries. This is true whether you favour Infowars or The Atlantic.
In the US, they refer to (for example) Irish Americans. That makes the ethnicity an adjective and the nationality a noun. So, they're Americans who might be tall, and thin, and of Irish ancestry.
In the UK, it's the opposite. They're Asians who happen to be British.
Prefer the American way, personally.
On a less pedantic point, I predict this will get less coverage than it might, and those irked by Boris' comments will be less keen to address this: "The survey found that less than half of respondents - 43% - thought same-sex relationships were acceptable."
Also, nationality is seen as less important than religion, amongst 'Asian British' [after writing the above, scrolled down and saw the article inverted the order above a graph] compared to the general population.
"On religion, over half of 18-34 year olds in the general population said it wasn't important to them "at all". Just 8% of young British Asians said the same."
Interesting stats but nothing especially new. Trevor Phillips, formerly the Racial Equality, had a very good programme on Channel 4 a couple of years ago looking at this sort of thing.
I was on a tube a fortnight ago and sone young Asian men were making some mildly homophobic comments and two men opposite me who I think weree that way inclined looked very uncomfortable.
Certainly the majority of countries where homosexuality is still criminalised are in the Islamic Middle East and North Africa and indeed sex outside marriage is illegal in some Arab states
I expect the top priority is to stop losing readers at the current rate. The Mail’s circulation figures have been dropping sharply. They’ve lost a quarter of their circulation since 2014. Shooing off the maddest readers to the Express is a bit of a gamble: where are the new readers going to come from?
Online
Well there’s the rub. Were going to see a crisis is the coming years. There is a second wave hitting traditional media. Young people are not picking up the online news habit. Older readers are not being replenished in print AND online. Big impact on some successful online news brands.
Not even all that young. I consume far less traditional news than I did 20 years ago and the news I consume only occasionally comes from British newspapers.
I'm the same. I read the Times pretty much every day 30 odd years ago at University and then the Indy but I stopped reading papers more than a decade ago. My wife buys the Courier (local) every day and the ST but I rarely open them. It is just so much easier getting the news I am actually interested in online.
I am just not interested in paying for news. If people like me aren't willing to do so newspapers have serious problems and they will have far less political power going forward.
Ditto. The daily paper went when I stopped daily commuting. Occasionally I buy one for a longer train journey, but it annoys me if I get the Guardian and find I have already read the most interesting bits online. On Sunday we used to get two newspapers, but most of the sections lay around unread; life is too short to study the kind of filler-journalism pap that SeanT and others churn out. Ending the Sunday subscription came as a kind of relief.
I read the Metro and the Standard on the tube and just get the Telegraph on a Saturday and the Sunday Times
Banks borrowing in dollars to lend in Lira is very reminiscent of the Asian crash of 97.
Amusingly, Erdoğan told most of the foreign banks to *uck off following thy attempted coup a few years ago. It means that there are far few foreigners with an economic interest in his survival.
Yes, it does seem that a right wing populist regime "taking back control" is not going well economically. What lessons could we learn?
LOBO loans were used by Newham and a few others as a source of finance because the interest rate offered was lower than the standard PWLB rate but it's not without some issues as some authorities are discovering.
I expect the top priority is to stop losing readers at the current rate. The Mail’s circulation figures have been dropping sharply. They’ve lost a quarter of their circulation since 2014. Shooing off the maddest readers to the Express is a bit of a gamble: where are the new readers going to come from?
Online
Well there’s the rub. Were going to see a crisis is the coming years. There is a second wave hitting traditional media. Young people are not picking up the online news habit. Older readers are not being replenished in print AND online. Big impact on some successful online news brands.
Not even all that young. I consume far less traditional news than I did 20 years ago and the news I consume only occasionally comes from British newspapers.
It’s a trend seriously worrying some of my old colleagues.
Newspapers put all their resources into op-ed writers. But opinions are ten a penny. Some idiots even churn them out for free online. There are very few op-ed writers indeed whose thoughts are so profound or whose writing is so beautiful that they are worth paying for.
Newspapers cut all the fact-finders. But facts are harder to come by and what people might actually pay for.
I expect the top priority is to stop losing readers at the current rate. The Mail’s circulation figures have been dropping sharply. They’ve lost a quarter of their circulation since 2014. Shooing off the maddest readers to the Express is a bit of a gamble: where are the new readers going to come from?
Online
Well there’s the rub. Were going to see a crisis is the coming years. There is a second wave hitting traditional media. Young people are not picking up the online news habit. Older readers are not being replenished in print AND online. Big impact on some successful online news brands.
Not even all that young. I consume far less traditional news than I did 20 years ago and the news I consume only occasionally comes from British newspapers.
I'm the same. I read the Times pretty much every day 30 odd years ago at University and then the Indy but I stopped reading papers more than a decade ago. My wife buys the Courier (local) every day and the ST but I rarely open them. It is just so much easier getting the news I am actually interested in online.
I am just not interested in paying for news. If people like me aren't willing to do so newspapers have serious problems and they will have far less political power going forward.
I haven't clicked through to see the details but I wonder what the Graun's model is. It seems to be a voluntary contribution which would surely introduce a free rider problem as the content you do or don't get doesn't appear to be different.
Oh it says you get the app ad free and the crossword. Plus you can see stories you missed. Not sure this is compelling.
I suspect the Guardian’s model is to be the last one standing. It may work. There is a market, but it’s not big enough to sustain the numbers currently playing.
The evidence (And excuse me if I've missed something) seem to consist of the unfortunate man getting Lymphona, and him using glyphosate heavily in his job. That's not enough to ascertain a link. Are there any peer reviewed papers to support the assertion ?
Lymphoma does seem to have substantially increased in incidence over recent decades.
In the US, they refer to (for example) Irish Americans. That makes the ethnicity an adjective and the nationality a noun. So, they're Americans who might be tall, and thin, and of Irish ancestry.
In the UK, it's the opposite. They're Asians who happen to be British.
Prefer the American way, personally.
On a less pedantic point, I predict this will get less coverage than it might, and those irked by Boris' comments will be less keen to address this: "The survey found that less than half of respondents - 43% - thought same-sex relationships were acceptable."
Also, nationality is seen as less important than religion, amongst 'Asian British' [after writing the above, scrolled down and saw the article inverted the order above a graph] compared to the general population.
"On religion, over half of 18-34 year olds in the general population said it wasn't important to them "at all". Just 8% of young British Asians said the same."
Interesting stats but nothing especially new. Trevor Phillips, formerly the Racial Equality, had a very good programme on Channel 4 a couple of years ago looking at this sort of thing.
I was on a tube a fortnight ago and sone young Asian men were making some mildly homophobic comments and two men opposite me who I think weree that way inclined looked very uncomfortable.
Certainly the majority of countries where homosexuality is still criminalised are in the Islamic Middle East and North Africa and indeed sex outside marriage is illegal in some Arab states
In the survey just 44% of 18 to 34 year old British Asians think same sex relationships are OK compared to 81% of all Britons in that age group.
Just 50% of 18 to 34 year old British Asians think sex outside of marriage is acceptable compared to 90% of all Britons
Most of the money will indeed go to help people with drug and mental health problems first before finding them longer term accommodation according to an ST interview with Brokenshire yesterday.
It seems a sensible policy
It will only seem "sensible" if the expectation behind it isn't that there will be no more rough sleepers. The approach in the past (and the Conservative leader at Windsor typified this) was rough sleepers should be driven out of sight (and presumably out of mind).
This, at least, acknowledges the problem and is a step in the right direction and I'll gladly acknowledge that but I'm worried this will all start in a blaze of publicity and then in a few months the money will dry up and local Councils will, as usual, be left with all the obligations and none of the resources (as has happened with Public Health).
Rough sleepers may not be a huge problem in Epping but travel to places like Stratford and Romford and you'll see what a significant problem it is in some areas.
Mr. HYUFD, aye. Countries with Muslim majorities tend to have at least some element of Islam in their law (Turkey was a huge exception that but is moving in the other direction).
Dr. Foxy, how much of that is just greater life expectancy leading to more transcription errors (at cellular division) and more cancer? Obviously young people get cancer too, but rates are higher with greater age.
Although, having written that, if other cancers are roughly steady then the rise in lymphoma specifically would indicate something else.
Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.
Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.
Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.
I expect the top priority is to stop losing readers at the current rate. The Mail’s circulation figures have been dropping sharply. They’ve lost a quarter of their circulation since 2014. Shooing off the maddest readers to the Express is a bit of a gamble: where are the new readers going to come from?
Online
Well there’s the rub. Were going to see a crisis is the coming years. There is a second wave hitting traditional media. Young people are not picking up the online news habit. Older readers are not being replenished in print AND online. Big impact on some successful online news brands.
Not even all that young. I consume far less traditional news than I did 20 years ago and the news I consume only occasionally comes from British newspapers.
I'm the same. I read the Times pretty much every day 30 odd years ago at University and then the Indy but I stopped reading papers more than a decade ago. My wife buys the Courier (local) every day and the ST but I rarely open them. It is just so much easier getting the news I am actually interested in online.
I am just not interested in paying for news. If people like me aren't willing to do so newspapers have serious problems and they will have far less political power going forward.
I haven't clicked through to see the details but I wonder what the Graun's model is. It seems to be a voluntary contribution which would surely introduce a free rider problem as the content you do or don't get doesn't appear to be different.
Oh it says you get the app ad free and the crossword. Plus you can see stories you missed. Not sure this is compelling.
I suspect the Guardian’s model is to be the last one standing. It may work. There is a market, but it’s not big enough to sustain the numbers currently playing.
The implication is that you would be acting in a Morally Good way by supporting the Guardian (vs the other rags out there).
The evidence (And excuse me if I've missed something) seem to consist of the unfortunate man getting Lymphona, and him using glyphosate heavily in his job. That's not enough to ascertain a link. Are there any peer reviewed papers to support the assertion ?
Lymphoma does seem to have substantially increased in incidence over recent decades.
My father died just a few weeks ago of a form of non-Hodgkins lymphoma; he was a keen gardener and an enthusiastic user of Roundup. My family was quite surprised that he died of a disease apparently unrelated to his heavy drinking and smoking.
Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.
Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.
Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.
Bullocks. Vast majority of Muslim women don't wear the burqa/niqab.
Quite frankly ita condescending and discriminatory to attempt to link that evil, oppressive, misogynistic, fundamentalist garb with Muslim women. Most Muslim women are more than capable of not shackling themselves under that fundamentalist nonsense and we should praise that not pander to the extremists who think it is normal.
Mr. Topping, I suspect one of the 21/7 attempted bombers fleeing whilst disguised in a burqa probably did more harm to public perceptions of Muslims than Boris' attention-seeking.
The whole story has received more attention than I imagine he thought it would. It may well be into Voltaire territory: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
In the past Ken Clarke, Jack Straw and Emily Thornberry have made comments (less oafish but still sceptical) about the niqab/burqa. The lack of condemnation then raises suspicions this is more about the Conservative leadership and/or the increasing degree of censorship.
Sadly, Boris is a vainglorious buffoon whose intentions and actions revolve entirely around himself. But free speech and the wildly variant view taken by the media and political class to someone saying some words about a garment compared to the removal of work from women (against their will, and in the name of feminism to boot) suggests that puritanism is very fashionable.
Mr. HYUFD, aye. Countries with Muslim majorities tend to have at least some element of Islam in their law (Turkey was a huge exception that but is moving in the other direction).
Dr. Foxy, how much of that is just greater life expectancy leading to more transcription errors (at cellular division) and more cancer? Obviously young people get cancer too, but rates are higher with greater age.
Although, having written that, if other cancers are roughly steady then the rise in lymphoma specifically would indicate something else.
There's more interesting detail in Turkey, Mr Dancer. Though the law may be secular, that includes the Secular State running the Muslim religion. In Turkey, if I recall correctly, all Imams are employed by a State body, which includes the writing of the weekly sermon delivered in all the Mosques.
That was originally a control measure in the 1920s, but has potential for the Islamic agenda in the country to be changed very rapidly.
"In Turkey, the Directorate of Religious Affairs (Turkish: Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı, normally referred to simply as the Diyanet) is an official state institution established in 1924 under article 136 of the Constitution of Turkey by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey as a successor to the Shaykh al-Islām after the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate.
As specified by law, the duties of the Diyanet are “to execute the works concerning the beliefs, worship, and ethics of Islam, enlighten the public about their religion, and administer the sacred worshiping places”. The Diyanet drafts a weekly sermon delivered at the nation’s 85,000 mosques and more than 2,000 mosques abroad that function under the directorate. It provides Quranic education for children and trains and employs all of Turkey’s imams, who are technically considered civil servants. It has been criticized for ignoring the Islamic creed of the 33–40% of Turkey's population that is not Hanafi Sunni Muslim." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate_of_Religious_Affairs
Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.
Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.
Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.
I read the Metro and the Standard on the tube and just get the Telegraph on a Saturday and the Sunday Times
Yes and City AM is worth a look though it's declined since Allister Heath left. The paper remains staunchly anti-Labour but it's also pro the softest of A50 deals especially anything which keeps the City more or less unchanged (also very pro-migration in terms of attracting European financial professionals to London).
My daily read is of course the Racing Post - a gentleman could read nothing else.
Mr. Stodge, a gentleman could read the Morris Dancer Gazette, full of important news on whether or not bell polish will become scarce due to import restrictions, the best ways to oil one's wiffle stick, and the latest trends in lace for men.
Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.
Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.
Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.
Bullocks. Vast majority of Muslim women don't wear the burqa/niqab.
Quite frankly ita condescending and discriminatory to attempt to link that evil, oppressive, misogynistic, fundamentalist garb with Muslim women. Most Muslim women are more than capable of not shackling themselves under that fundamentalist nonsense and we should praise that not pander to the extremists who think it is normal.
QED.
Although I appreciate we are discussing the Daily Mail on here, and your ill-informed rant fits in well with their Dacre-era ethos, you should understand that we here in the UK (you are British, aren't you?) don't really take to being told what we should or shouldn't wear
In addition, if a senior politician, even an utter, utter twat of a senior politician uses far right dog whistles to pick on as you yourself say a small minority of the population, this is nothing that people such as yourself should be cheering.
Or perhaps you are the kind of person who would cheer on someone who is bullying a weaker, more vulnerable member of society.
Good morning all. We're back to the old saw 'Opinions are like arseholes - everyone has one'. De nos jours, some of the arseholes even have opinions.
It's sad to see once great papers like the Telegraph descend into a ghastly purveyor of listicles and half-baked opinion columns, but presumably they have data in support of this business model, even if the rationale escapes plebs like me.
Over the last twenty odd years, we've segued from an information economy to an attention economy, which presumably (at least in part) accounts for the rise in emotion-based rather than fact-based reporting.
I expect the top priority is to stop losing readers at the current rate. The Mail’s circulation figures have been dropping sharply. They’ve lost a quarter of their circulation since 2014. Shooing off the maddest readers to the Express is a bit of a gamble: where are the new readers going to come from?
Online
Well there’s the rub. Were going to see a crisis is the coming years. There is a second wave hitting traditional media. Young people are not picking up the online news habit. Older readers are not being replenished in print AND online. Big impact on some successful online news brands.
Not even all that young. I consume far less traditional news than I did 20 years ago and the news I consume only occasionally comes from British newspapers.
I'm the same. I read the Times pretty much every day 30 odd years ago at University and then the Indy but I stopped reading papers more than a decade ago. My wife buys the Courier (local) every day and the ST but I rarely open them. It is just so much easier getting the news I am actually interested in online.
I am just not interested in paying for news. If people like me aren't willing to do so newspapers have serious problems and they will have far less political power going forward.
Ditto. The daily paper went when I stopped daily commuting. Occasionally I buy one for a longer train journey, but it annoys me if I get the Guardian and find I have already read the most interesting bits online. On Sunday we used to get two newspapers, but most of the sections lay around unread; life is too short to study the kind of filler-journalism pap that SeanT and others churn out. Ending the Sunday subscription came as a kind of relief.
I read the Metro and the Standard on the tube and just get the Telegraph on a Saturday and the Sunday Times
I wonder whether even the free commuter papers are holding readers? I have changed my jobs and commuting patterns over the years, but time was when you could pick up one of 20 strewn copies of the Metro/MEN etc on any peak time tram/train. There seem to be far fewer now and I don't see anywhere near the number of people picking them up from the racks/handers out.
Mr. Topping, I suspect one of the 21/7 attempted bombers fleeing whilst disguised in a burqa probably did more harm to public perceptions of Muslims than Boris' attention-seeking.
The whole story has received more attention than I imagine he thought it would. It may well be into Voltaire territory: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
In the past Ken Clarke, Jack Straw and Emily Thornberry have made comments (less oafish but still sceptical) about the niqab/burqa. The lack of condemnation then raises suspicions this is more about the Conservative leadership and/or the increasing degree of censorship.
Sadly, Boris is a vainglorious buffoon whose intentions and actions revolve entirely around himself. But free speech and the wildly variant view taken by the media and political class to someone saying some words about a garment compared to the removal of work from women (against their will, and in the name of feminism to boot) suggests that puritanism is very fashionable.
There is a profound difference between criticising the garment and those who wear it.
The argument against the burkha is that it oppresses women. It's not clear to me how attacking those women is adding anything constructive to the debate, which Johnson claims to be in favour of - before refusing to talk about it when asked by the press.
And when one accepts the party whip one also accepts constraints on public statements, so 'free speech' is not at issue, merely Johnson's leadership ambitions.
Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.
Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.
Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.
Bullocks. Vast majority of Muslim women don't wear the burqa/niqab.
Quite frankly ita condescending and discriminatory to attempt to link that evil, oppressive, misogynistic, fundamentalist garb with Muslim women. Most Muslim women are more than capable of not shackling themselves under that fundamentalist nonsense and we should praise that not pander to the extremists who think it is normal.
QED.
Although I appreciate we are discussing the Daily Mail on here, and your ill-informed rant fits in well with their Dacre-era ethos, you should understand that we here in the UK (you are British, aren't you?) don't really take to being told what we should or shouldn't wear
In addition, if a senior politician, even an utter, utter twat of a senior politician uses far right dog whistles to pick on as you yourself say a small minority of the population, this is nothing that people such as yourself should be cheering.
Or perhaps you are the kind of person who would cheer on someone who is bullying a weaker, more vulnerable member of society.
That's just not true. There are laws on what you can and can't wear. Try walking down the high street naked and see how far you get. Try going into a bank wearing a balaclava and see the reaction. Some shopping centres have banned hoodies even.
There is absolutely nothing far right about opposing the burka.
I expect the top priority is to stop losing readers at the current rate. The Mail’s circulation figures have been dropping sharply. They’ve lost a quarter of their circulation since 2014. Shooing off the maddest readers to the Express is a bit of a gamble: where are the new readers going to come from?
Online
Well there’s the rub. Were going to see a crisis is the coming years. There is a second wave hitting traditional media. Young people are not picking up the online news habit. Older readers are not being replenished in print AND online. Big impact on some successful online news brands.
Not even all that young. I consume far less traditional news than I did 20 years ago and the news I consume only occasionally comes from British newspapers.
I'm the same. I read the Times pretty much every day 30 odd years ago at University and then the Indy but I stopped reading papers more than a decade ago. My wife buys the Courier (local) every day and the ST but I rarely open them. It is just so much easier getting the news I am actually interested in online.
I am just not interested in paying for news. If people like me aren't willing to do so newspapers have serious problems and they will have far less political power going forward.
I haven't clicked through to see the details but I wonder what the Graun's model is. It seems to be a voluntary contribution which would surely introduce a free rider problem as the content you do or don't get doesn't appear to be different.
Oh it says you get the app ad free and the crossword. Plus you can see stories you missed. Not sure this is compelling.
I suspect the Guardian’s model is to be the last one standing. It may work. There is a market, but it’s not big enough to sustain the numbers currently playing.
On circulation, the Times has increased circulation since 2014 by about 15%.
But they have been doing some very expensive Air Miles promotions for a number of years.
Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.
Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.
Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.
Bullocks. Vast majority of Muslim women don't wear the burqa/niqab.
Quite frankly ita condescending and discriminatory to attempt to link that evil, oppressive, misogynistic, fundamentalist garb with Muslim women. Most Muslim women are more than capable of not shackling themselves under that fundamentalist nonsense and we should praise that not pander to the extremists who think it is normal.
QED.
Although I appreciate we are discussing the Daily Mail on here, and your ill-informed rant fits in well with their Dacre-era ethos, you should understand that we here in the UK (you are British, aren't you?) don't really take to being told what we should or shouldn't wear
In addition, if a senior politician, even an utter, utter twat of a senior politician uses far right dog whistles to pick on as you yourself say a small minority of the population, this is nothing that people such as yourself should be cheering.
Or perhaps you are the kind of person who would cheer on someone who is bullying a weaker, more vulnerable member of society.
That's just not true. There are laws on what you can and can't wear. Try walking down the high street naked and see how far you get. Try going into a bank wearing a balaclava and see the reaction. Some shopping centres have banned hoodies even.
There is absolutely nothing far right about opposing the burka.
Those laws have entirely sensible reasons for being in place, even if you don't agree with them (eg. "decency").
The burka is just something you don't happen to like for any number of conflated and ill-thought out reasons.
I wonder whether even the free commuter papers are holding readers? I have changed my jobs and commuting patterns over the years, but time was when you could pick up one of 20 strewn copies of the Metro/MEN etc on any peak time tram/train. There seem to be far fewer now and I don't see anywhere near the number of people picking them up from the racks/handers out.
I don't know how many Evening Standard are printed for distribution in London - I've seen 1.2 million somewhere as the daily run. The distribution seems a bit haphazard - it's primarily a read for commuters travelling home so plenty at Waterloo, Victoria, Euston and the big central London tube stations I understand.
Out in the suburbs they deliver plenty to East Ham but the poor sellers can't shift them as people returning from London already have a copy. Yes, a few locals will pick one up but they are also available at our local Tesco and Sainsbury and if I miss the previous night's paper I can always pick it up at Sainsbury's the next morning.
The paper reaches Surbiton at 4.30pm but again not many takers as the bulk of those travelling are coming back from London. As I'm sure George Osborne won't tell us (and he probably doesn't know), I suspect there are several thousand left unread every day.
The paper makes its dosh from advertising so I suppose it doesn't really matter.
Mr. HYUFD, aye. Countries with Muslim majorities tend to have at least some element of Islam in their law (Turkey was a huge exception that but is moving in the other direction).
Dr. Foxy, how much of that is just greater life expectancy leading to more transcription errors (at cellular division) and more cancer? Obviously young people get cancer too, but rates are higher with greater age.
Although, having written that, if other cancers are roughly steady then the rise in lymphoma specifically would indicate something else.
Interesting thing was all Britons put their nationality as the most important part of their identity but for British Asians it was their religion
Mr. P, didn't the last migration stats indicate a net inflow of 100,000 EU migrants?
It's not enough, Mr Dancer. As the report shows, there are, on average, a mere 20 people applying for each low skilled job, when it used to be 24. I'm not sure how much 'enough' is, I just know that the employers want more. Won't someone please think of the employers?
Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.
Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.
Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.
No, Johnson has expressed a liberal opinion explaining in essence that he does not think that a tiny minority of Muslim women should be banned from covering themselves from head to toe, while at the same time making his personal distaste at their choices very clear. In the meantime, it was apparently OK for Stephen Fry and Paul Merton on HIGNFY or Polly Toynbee to rightly ridicule such choices. https://order-order.com/2018/08/10/bbc-guardian-also-mocked-burka/
Mr. Topping, I suspect one of the 21/7 attempted bombers fleeing whilst disguised in a burqa probably did more harm to public perceptions of Muslims than Boris' attention-seeking.
The whole story has received more attention than I imagine he thought it would. It may well be into Voltaire territory: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
In the past Ken Clarke, Jack Straw and Emily Thornberry have made comments (less oafish but still sceptical) about the niqab/burqa. The lack of condemnation then raises suspicions this is more about the Conservative leadership and/or the increasing degree of censorship.
Sadly, Boris is a vainglorious buffoon whose intentions and actions revolve entirely around himself. But free speech and the wildly variant view taken by the media and political class to someone saying some words about a garment compared to the removal of work from women (against their will, and in the name of feminism to boot) suggests that puritanism is very fashionable.
As you say 'Boris is a vainglorious buffoon.' No-one disputes this right to free speech but if he's damaging the Conservative party and doing nothing to advance the debate on the burqa - why would he, his stock in trade is humorous outrage - then I think the party has every right to act. Tom Harris wrote a piece in the Telegraph saying as much. We need politicians who are prepared to offend but Boris is not the example to follow.
Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.
Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.
Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.
Bullocks. Vast majority of Muslim women don't wear the burqa/niqab.
Quite frankly ita condescending and discriminatory to attempt to link that evil, oppressive, misogynistic, fundamentalist garb with Muslim women. Most Muslim women are more than capable of not shackling themselves under that fundamentalist nonsense and we should praise that not pander to the extremists who think it is normal.
QED.
Although I appreciate we are discussing the Daily Mail on here, and your ill-informed rant fits in well with their Dacre-era ethos, you should understand that we here in the UK (you are British, aren't you?) don't really take to being told what we should or shouldn't wear
In addition, if a senior politician, even an utter, utter twat of a senior politician uses far right dog whistles to pick on as you yourself say a small minority of the population, this is nothing that people such as yourself should be cheering.
Or perhaps you are the kind of person who would cheer on someone who is bullying a weaker, more vulnerable member of society.
That's just not true. There are laws on what you can and can't wear. Try walking down the high street naked and see how far you get. Try going into a bank wearing a balaclava and see the reaction. Some shopping centres have banned hoodies even.
There is absolutely nothing far right about opposing the burka.
Those laws have entirely sensible reasons for being in place, even if you don't agree with them (eg. "decency").
The burka is just something you don't happen to like for any number of conflated and ill-thought out reasons.
How many women in the UK wear burkhas? I don’t think I’ve ever seen one. We all now know that Bannon’s man was talking about the niqab, don’t we?
I've had a long think about it, and have decided Boris is right - a burka and niqab ban is not the correct route to go down mainly due to enforcibility and also banning something is decidely illiberal. They're not exactly symbols of enlightened modernity either though now are they ?
Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.
Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.
Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.
Bullocks. Vast majority of Muslim women don't wear the burqa/niqab.
Quite frankly ita condescending and discriminatory to attempt to link that evil, oppressive, misogynistic, fundamentalist garb with Muslim women. Most Muslim women are more than capable of not shackling themselves under that fundamentalist nonsense and we should praise that not pander to the extremists who think it is normal.
QED.
Although I appreciate we are discussing the Daily Mail on here, and your ill-informed rant fits in well with their Dacre-era ethos, you should understand that we here in the UK (you are British, aren't you?) don't really take to being told what we should or shouldn't wear
In addition, if a senior politician, even an utter, utter twat of a senior politician uses far right dog whistles to pick on as you yourself say a small minority of the population, this is nothing that people such as yourself should be cheering.
Or perhaps you are the kind of person who would cheer on someone who is bullying a weaker, more vulnerable member of society.
That's just not true. There are laws on what you can and can't wear. Try walking down the high street naked and see how far you get. Try going into a bank wearing a balaclava and see the reaction. Some shopping centres have banned hoodies even.
There is absolutely nothing far right about opposing the burka.
Those laws have entirely sensible reasons for being in place, even if you don't agree with them (eg. "decency").
The burka is just something you don't happen to like for any number of conflated and ill-thought out reasons.
How many women in the UK wear burkhas? I don’t think I’ve ever seen one. We all now know that Bannon’s man was talking about the niqab, don’t we?
I've had a long think about it, and have decided Boris is right - a burka and niqab ban is not the correct route to go down mainly due to enforcibility and also banning something is decidely illiberal. They're not exactly symbols of enlightened modernity either though now are they ?
For me, it's like free speech - the test is how keen you are on it when people are saying things you personally find abhorrent. People should be able to, within the limits of public decency and security, wear what _they_ like, not what _I_ like.
That's just not true. There are laws on what you can and can't wear. Try walking down the high street naked and see how far you get. Try going into a bank wearing a balaclava and see the reaction. Some shopping centres have banned hoodies even.
There is absolutely nothing far right about opposing the burka.
Those laws have entirely sensible reasons for being in place, even if you don't agree with them (eg. "decency").
The burka is just something you don't happen to like for any number of conflated and ill-thought out reasons.
The burka is something I don't like because of any number of well founded and well thought through liberal reasons. If you do like it I'd like to hear your well thought through reason why in 21st century Britain pandering to a fundamentalist cult of a medieval religion and misogynistically dehumanising women is acceptable to you.
If you think its acceptable to ban a balaclava for a well thought through reason in eg a court house, school, bank or airport then it should be equally acceptable to ban a worse and more oppressive garment in those locations.
Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.
Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.
Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.
Bullocks. Vast majority of Muslim women don't wear the burqa/niqab.
Quite frankly ita condescending and discriminatory to attempt to link that evil, oppressive, misogynistic, fundamentalist garb with Muslim women. Most Muslim women are more than capable of not shackling themselves under that fundamentalist nonsense and we should praise that not pander to the extremists who think it is normal.
QED.
Although I appreciate we are discussing the Daily Mail on here, and your ill-informed rant fits in well with their Dacre-era ethos, you should understand that we here in the UK (you are British, aren't you?) don't really take to being told what we should or shouldn't wear
In addition, if a senior politician, even an utter, utter twat of a senior politician uses far right dog whistles to pick on as you yourself say a small minority of the population, this is nothing that people such as yourself should be cheering.
Or perhaps you are the kind of person who would cheer on someone who is bullying a weaker, more vulnerable member of society.
That's just not true. There are laws on what you can and can't wear. Try walking down the high street naked and see how far you get. Try going into a bank wearing a balaclava and see the reaction. Some shopping centres have banned hoodies even.
There is absolutely nothing far right about opposing the burka.
Those laws have entirely sensible reasons for being in place, even if you don't agree with them (eg. "decency").
The burka is just something you don't happen to like for any number of conflated and ill-thought out reasons.
How many women in the UK wear burkhas? I don’t think I’ve ever seen one. We all now know that Bannon’s man was talking about the niqab, don’t we?
How different is the niqab and the burqa?
You can’t possibly confuse a burqa for a letter box.
Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.
Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.
Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.
Bullocks. Vast majority of Muslim women don't wear the burqa/niqab.
Quite frankly ita condescending and discriminatory to attempt to link that evil, oppressive, misogynistic, fundamentalist garb with Muslim women. Most Muslim women are more than capable of not shackling themselves under that fundamentalist nonsense and we should praise that not pander to the extremists who think it is normal.
QED.
Although I appreciate we are discussing the Daily Mail on here, and your ill-informed rant fits in well with their Dacre-era ethos, you should understand that we here in the UK (you are British, aren't you?) don't really take to being told what we should or shouldn't wear
In addition, if a senior politician, even an utter, utter twat of a senior politician uses far right dog whistles to pick on as you yourself say a small minority of the population, this is nothing that people such as yourself should be cheering.
Or perhaps you are the kind of person who would cheer on someone who is bullying a weaker, more vulnerable member of society.
That's just not true. There are laws on what you can and can't wear. Try walking down the high street naked and see how far you get. Try going into a bank wearing a balaclava and see the reaction. Some shopping centres have banned hoodies even.
There is absolutely nothing far right about opposing the burka.
Those laws have entirely sensible reasons for being in place, even if you don't agree with them (eg. "decency").
The burka is just something you don't happen to like for any number of conflated and ill-thought out reasons.
which EU countries would you describe as not decent ?
Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.
Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.
Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.
Bullocks. Vast majority of Muslim women don't wear the burqa/niqab.
Quite frankly ita condescending and discriminatory to attempt to link that evil, oppressive, misogynistic, fundamentalist garb with Muslim women. Most Muslim women are more than capable of not shackling themselves under that fundamentalist nonsense and we should praise that not pander to the extremists who think it is normal.
QED.
Although I appreciate we are discussing the Daily Mail on here, and your ill-informed rant fits in well with their Dacre-era ethos, you should understand that we here in the UK (you are British, aren't you?) don't really take to being told what we should or shouldn't wear
In addition, if a senior politician, even an utter, utter twat of a senior politician uses far right dog whistles to pick on as you yourself say a small minority of the population, this is nothing that people such as yourself should be cheering.
Or perhaps you are the kind of person who would cheer on someone who is bullying a weaker, more vulnerable member of society.
That's just not true. There are laws on what you can and can't wear. Try walking down the high street naked and see how far you get. Try going into a bank wearing a balaclava and see the reaction. Some shopping centres have banned hoodies even.
There is absolutely nothing far right about opposing the burka.
Those laws have entirely sensible reasons for being in place, even if you don't agree with them (eg. "decency").
The burka is just something you don't happen to like for any number of conflated and ill-thought out reasons.
How many women in the UK wear burkhas? I don’t think I’ve ever seen one. We all now know that Bannon’s man was talking about the niqab, don’t we?
How different is the niqab and the burqa?
You can’t possibly confuse a burqa for a letter box.
The grill stops you sticking the letter in, for starters.
That's just not true. There are laws on what you can and can't wear. Try walking down the high street naked and see how far you get. Try going into a bank wearing a balaclava and see the reaction. Some shopping centres have banned hoodies even.
There is absolutely nothing far right about opposing the burka.
Those laws have entirely sensible reasons for being in place, even if you don't agree with them (eg. "decency").
The burka is just something you don't happen to like for any number of conflated and ill-thought out reasons.
The burka is something I don't like because of any number of well founded and well thought through liberal reasons. If you do like it I'd like to hear your well thought through reason why in 21st century Britain pandering to a fundamentalist cult of a medieval religion and misogynistically dehumanising women is acceptable to you.
If you think its acceptable to ban a balaclava for a well thought through reason in eg a court house, school, bank or airport then it should be equally acceptable to ban a worse and more oppressive garment in those locations.
What was your position on punk rock and those degenerates undermining our society by sticking safety pins through their noses? A ban, right?
I agree that the Tories fortunes depend heavily on whether they can park Brexit and switch focus to delivering a social reform agenda. It is desperately needed - the collapse of Northamptonshire is just the latest in a long line of stories laying bare the strain.
The goodwill for Chequers from centre left Remainers like myself was palpable on PB the day after the event - that constituency had no reason to go Tory in 2017, but if the Tories can show that they understand and have ideas for the fabric of Britain then it's game on in 2022.
Losses to the UKIP/handsitting, which in themselves will depend on how hard the betrayal narrative takes hold, can be offset by centrist Remainy support by 2022 if the Tories show such understanding and boldness. It's still a mighty big ask for a government with no majority, no shortage of swivel eyed outriders and a limited grasp of the lives of public service end users, but I would be very happy for it to happen.
Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.
Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.
Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.
No, Johnson has expressed a liberal opinion explaining in essence that he does not think that a tiny minority of Muslim women should be banned from covering themselves from head to toe, while at the same time making his personal distaste at their choices very clear. In the meantime, it was apparently OK for Stephen Fry and Paul Merton on HIGNFY or Polly Toynbee to rightly ridicule such choices. https://order-order.com/2018/08/10/bbc-guardian-also-mocked-burka/
Johnson insulted a section of society. He happened to use (surely a coincidence) the language of the far right in likening those who wear the niqab* to letterboxes. That is rude, bullying and, as the MCB bloke pointed out this morning, inflammatory. Because you know, if a senior politician can insult women who are minding their own business on the streets of London, then racist thugs can insult them and all is cushty, right?
*niqab/burka I'm sure the BNP don't give a toss about the difference.
Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.
Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.
Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.
Bullocks. Vast majority of Muslim women don't wear the burqa/niqab.
Quite frankly ita condescending and discriminatory to attempt to link that evil, oppressive, misogynistic, fundamentalist garb with Muslim women. Most Muslim women are more than capable of not shackling themselves under that fundamentalist nonsense and we should praise that not pander to the extremists who think it is normal.
QED.
Although I appreciate we are discussing the Daily Mail on here, and your ill-informed rant fits in well with their Dacre-era ethos, you should understand that we here in the UK (you are British, aren't you?) don't really take to being told what we should or shouldn't wear
In addition, if a senior politician, even an utter, utter twat of a senior politician uses far right dog whistles to pick on as you yourself say a small minority of the population, this is nothing that people such as yourself should be cheering.
Or perhaps you are the kind of person who would cheer on someone who is bullying a weaker, more vulnerable member of society.
That's just not true. There are l hoodies even.
There is absolutely nothing far right about opposing the burka.
Those laws have entirely sensible reasons for being in place, even if you don't agree with them (eg. "decency").
The burka is just something you don't happen to like for any number of conflated and ill-thought out reasons.
How many women in the UK wear burkhas? I don’t think I’ve ever seen one. We all now know that Bannon’s man was talking about the niqab, don’t we?
How different is the niqab and the burqa?
You can’t possibly confuse a burqa for a letter box.
The grill stops you sticking the letter in, for starters.
That's just not true. There are laws on what you can and can't wear. Try walking down the high street naked and see how far you get. Try going into a bank wearing a balaclava and see the reaction. Some shopping centres have banned hoodies even.
There is absolutely nothing far right about opposing the burka.
Those laws have entirely sensible reasons for being in place, even if you don't agree with them (eg. "decency").
The burka is just something you don't happen to like for any number of conflated and ill-thought out reasons.
The burka is something I don't like because of any number of well founded and well thought through liberal reasons. If you do like it I'd like to hear your well thought through reason why in 21st century Britain pandering to a fundamentalist cult of a medieval religion and misogynistically dehumanising women is acceptable to you.
If you think its acceptable to ban a balaclava for a well thought through reason in eg a court house, school, bank or airport then it should be equally acceptable to ban a worse and more oppressive garment in those locations.
What was your position on punk rock and those degenerates undermining our society by sticking safety pins through their noses? A ban, right?
Not at all.
As a liberal I don't believe in a burka ban but I could be open to it if alternatives don't work to stamp it out, because of the harm it causes, like backing the smoking indoors ban.
However I do believe in equality before the law and if there is a sound reason for a ban on face coverings like balaclavas then that should apply equally to fundamentalist garbs too.
Do you honestly claim that the niqab is just a fashion choice and not fundamentalist, illiberal misogynis?
Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.
Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.
Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.
No, Johnson has expressed a liberal opinion explaining in essence that he does not think that a tiny minority of Muslim women should be banned from covering themselves from head to toe, while at the same time making his personal distaste at their choices very clear. In the meantime, it was apparently OK for Stephen Fry and Paul Merton on HIGNFY or Polly Toynbee to rightly ridicule such choices. https://order-order.com/2018/08/10/bbc-guardian-also-mocked-burka/
Johnson insulted a section of society. He happened to use (surely a coincidence) the language of the far right in likening those who wear the niqab* to letterboxes. That is rude, bullying and, as the MCB bloke pointed out this morning, inflammatory. Because you know, if a senior politician can insult women who are minding their own business on the streets of London, then racist thugs can insult them and all is cushty, right?
*niqab/burka I'm sure the BNP don't give a toss about the difference.
Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.
Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.
Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.
No, Johnson has expressed a liberal opinion explaining in essence that he does not think that a tiny minority of Muslim women should be banned from covering themselves from head to toe, while at the same time making his personal distaste at their choices very clear. In the meantime, it was apparently OK for Stephen Fry and Paul Merton on HIGNFY or Polly Toynbee to rightly ridicule such choices. https://order-order.com/2018/08/10/bbc-guardian-also-mocked-burka/
Johnson insulted a section of society. He happened to use (surely a coincidence) the language of the far right in likening those who wear the niqab* to letterboxes. That is rude, bullying and, as the MCB bloke pointed out this morning, inflammatory. Because you know, if a senior politician can insult women who are minding their own business on the streets of London, then racist thugs can insult them and all is cushty, right?
*niqab/burka I'm sure the BNP don't give a toss about the difference.
The far right like Stephen Fry?
I'm certainly not going to google it but knock yourself out to see which end of the political spectrum the trope of "letterbox" sits most happily.
Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.
Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.
Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.
No, Johnson has expressed a liberal opinion explaining in essence that he does not think that a tiny minority of Muslim women should be banned from covering themselves from head to toe, while at the same time making his personal distaste at their choices very clear. In the meantime, it was apparently OK for Stephen Fry and Paul Merton on HIGNFY or Polly Toynbee to rightly ridicule such choices. https://order-order.com/2018/08/10/bbc-guardian-also-mocked-burka/
Johnson insulted a section of society. He happened to use (surely a coincidence) the language of the far right in likening those who wear the niqab* to letterboxes. That is rude, bullying and, as the MCB bloke pointed out this morning, inflammatory. Because you know, if a senior politician can insult women who are minding their own business on the streets of London, then racist thugs can insult them and all is cushty, right?
*niqab/burka I'm sure the BNP don't give a toss about the difference.
The far right like Stephen Fry?
I'm certainly not going to google it but knock yourself out to see which end of the political spectrum the trope of "letterbox" sits most happily.
Yes anyone with decency who thinks oppressing women is unacceptable. Like Stephen Fry but unlike you sadly it seems.
Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.
Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.
Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.
No, Johnson has expressed a liberal opinion explaining in essence that he does not think that a tiny minority of Muslim women should be banned from covering themselves from head to toe, while at the same time making his personal distaste at their choices very clear. In the meantime, it was apparently OK for Stephen Fry and Paul Merton on HIGNFY or Polly Toynbee to rightly ridicule such choices. https://order-order.com/2018/08/10/bbc-guardian-also-mocked-burka/
Perhaps Mr Johnson could defuse accusations of discrimination by also making fun of the silly hats that are part of traditional Jewish garb and by referring to nuns as penguins? Or maybe it would be better if he left it to the comedians to make edgy jokes about religious apparel.
I've had a long think about it, and have decided Boris is right - a burka and niqab ban is not the correct route to go down mainly due to enforcibility and also banning something is decidely illiberal. They're not exactly symbols of enlightened modernity either though now are they ?
For me, it's like free speech - the test is how keen you are on it when people are saying things you personally find abhorrent. People should be able to, within the limits of public decency and security, wear what _they_ like, not what _I_ like.
I don't like the Burqa or Niqab, and regard them as misogynist.
That doesn't require insulting the wearer though. The Letterbox joke is not a funny one, but while acceptable free speech for a comedian or a columnist, in the mouth of a senior politician who aspires to be Prime Minister it just confirms his unsuitability to high office.
Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.
Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.
Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.
No, Johnson has expressed a liberal opinion explaining in essence that he does not think that a tiny minority of Muslim women should be banned from covering themselves from head to toe, while at the same time making his personal distaste at their choices very clear. In the meantime, it was apparently OK for Stephen Fry and Paul Merton on HIGNFY or Polly Toynbee to rightly ridicule such choices. https://order-order.com/2018/08/10/bbc-guardian-also-mocked-burka/
Johnson insulted a section of society. He happened to use (surely a coincidence) the language of the far right in likening those who wear the niqab* to letterboxes. That is rude, bullying and, as the MCB bloke pointed out this morning, inflammatory. Because you know, if a senior politician can insult women who are minding their own business on the streets of London, then racist thugs can insult them and all is cushty, right?
*niqab/burka I'm sure the BNP don't give a toss about the difference.
The far right like Stephen Fry?
I'm certainly not going to google it but knock yourself out to see which end of the political spectrum the trope of "letterbox" sits most happily.
Yes anyone with decency who thinks oppressing women is unacceptable. Like Stephen Fry but unlike you sadly it seems.
Would banning the burqa reduce oppression? Might it not lead to women who currently wear it not being able to leave the house as often?
That's just not true. There are laws on what you can and can't wear. Try walking down the high street naked and see how far you get. Try going into a bank wearing a balaclava and see the reaction. Some shopping centres have banned hoodies even.
There is absolutely nothing far right about opposing the burka.
Those laws have entirely sensible reasons for being in place, even if you don't agree with them (eg. "decency").
The burka is just something you don't happen to like for any number of conflated and ill-thought out reasons.
The
If you think its acceptable to ban a balaclava for a well thought through reason in eg a court house, school, bank or airport then it should be equally acceptable to ban a worse and more oppressive garment in those locations.
What was your position on punk rock and those degenerates undermining our society by sticking safety pins through their noses? A ban, right?
Not at all.
As a liberal I don't believe in a burka ban but I could be open to it if alternatives don't work to stamp it out, because of the harm it causes, like backing the smoking indoors ban.
However I do believe in equality before the law and if there is a sound reason for a ban on face coverings like balaclavas then that should apply equally to fundamentalist garbs too.
Do you honestly claim that the niqab is just a fashion choice and not fundamentalist, illiberal misogynis?
Right - a bit of a mish mash of a post, let me try to unpick it.
You don't want a burka ban but are open to "alternatives to stamp it out" because of the harm it does.
What harm does a woman walking along the road, face all but fully covered, do to you? Not to "society", but to you?
As for equality before the law, I don't necessarily disagree. I have no idea what the Barclays Bank policy on face coverings is but perhaps it discriminates by saying that for religious reasons, burkas are fine.
Perhaps they took a leaf out of these guys' book and understood that there is a religious sensitivity out there.
Look, you don't like the burqa. It makes you think that the woman is insulting you, personally, Philip Thompson (if that's your name). Totally understandable. But that is the society we have chosen to live in where people can make such choices without needing to worry about whether they insult sn*wfl*k*s.
I've had a long think about it, and have decided Boris is right - a burka and niqab ban is not the correct route to go down mainly due to enforcibility and also banning something is decidely illiberal. They're not exactly symbols of enlightened modernity either though now are they ?
For me, it's like free speech - the test is how keen you are on it when people are saying things you personally find abhorrent. People should be able to, within the limits of public decency and security, wear what _they_ like, not what _I_ like.
I don't like the Burqa or Niqab, and regard them as misogynist.
That doesn't require insulting the wearer though. The Letterbox joke is not a funny one, but while acceptable free speech for a comedian or a columnist, in the mouth of a senior politician who aspires to be Prime Minister it just confirms his unsuitability to high office.
That may be so, though jokes are, like many things, funny in the eye of the beholder. I think Boris fucking up the Foreign Secretary role was more important confirmation. He's always been gaffe-prone, but so was (ahem) Churchill. However, I think the PB consensus is that Boris is no Churchill, however many times he clicks his heels in the ruby slippers.
I expect the top priority is to stop losing readers at the current rate. The Mail’s circulation figures have been dropping sharply. They’ve lost a quarter of their circulation since 2014. Shooing off the maddest readers to the Express is a bit of a gamble: where are the new readers going to come from?
I think Alistair is doing a bit of early morning self-indulgence exercise here :-D .
The only Remain supporting tabloid, which is the Mirror, has gone down by 40%+ in the same period.
It's not just the editorial line, the Mail has Tom Utley, Richard Littlejohn, AN Wilson and Dominic Lawson, and other pro-Brexit opinion writers that attract and reinforce the line.
I doubt he will ditch all those.
They're columnists. Brexit is becoming the status quo, and columnists don't attract readers by continually saluting the status quo. Instead, they fight it. So expect those columnists to start questioning Brexit - or whatever the government comes up with.
You haven’t read any of those columnists copy, have you?
Yes, I have. Now, can I have an educated response please?
Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.
Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.
Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.
No, Johnson has expressed a liberal opinion explaining in essence that he does not think that a tiny minority of Muslim women should be banned from covering themselves from head to toe, while at the same time making his personal distaste at their choices very clear. In the meantime, it was apparently OK for Stephen Fry and Paul Merton on HIGNFY or Polly Toynbee to rightly ridicule such choices. https://order-order.com/2018/08/10/bbc-guardian-also-mocked-burka/
Johnson insulted a section of society. He happened to use (surely a coincidence) the language of the far right in likening those who wear the niqab* to letterboxes. That is rude, bullying and, as the MCB bloke pointed out this morning, inflammatory. Because you know, if a senior politician can insult women who are minding their own business on the streets of London, then racist thugs can insult them and all is cushty, right?
*niqab/burka I'm sure the BNP don't give a toss about the difference.
The far right like Stephen Fry?
I'm certainly not going to google it but knock yourself out to see which end of the political spectrum the trope of "letterbox" sits most happily.
Yes anyone with decency who thinks oppressing women is unacceptable. Like Stephen Fry but unlike you sadly it seems.
Would banning the burqa reduce oppression? Might it not lead to women who currently wear it not being able to leave the house as often?
That's the only reason I see to oppose the bans in Denmark, France, Belgium and the Netherlands.
Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.
Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.
Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.
No, Johnson has expressed a liberal opinion explaining in essence that he does not think that a tiny minority of Muslim women should be banned from covering themselves from head to toe, while at the same time making his personal distaste at their choices very clear. In the meantime, it was apparently OK for Stephen Fry and Paul Merton on HIGNFY or Polly Toynbee to rightly ridicule such choices. https://order-order.com/2018/08/10/bbc-guardian-also-mocked-burka/
Perhaps Mr Johnson could defuse accusations of discrimination by also making fun of the silly hats that are part of traditional Jewish garb and by referring to nuns as penguins? Or maybe it would be better if he left it to the comedians to make edgy jokes about religious apparel.
Or give up the politics and become a full time clown.
Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.
Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.
Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.
No, Johnson has expressed a liberal opinion explaining in essence that he does not think that a tiny minority of Muslim women should be banned from covering themselves from head to toe, while at the same time making his personal distaste at their choices very clear. In the meantime, it was apparently OK for Stephen Fry and Paul Merton on HIGNFY or Polly Toynbee to rightly ridicule such choices. https://order-order.com/2018/08/10/bbc-guardian-also-mocked-burka/
Johnson insulted a section of society. He happened to use (surely a coincidence) the language of the far right in likening those who wear the niqab* to letterboxes. That is rude, bullying and, as the MCB bloke pointed out this morning, inflammatory. Because you know, if a senior politician can insult women who are minding their own business on the streets of London, then racist thugs can insult them and all is cushty, right?
*niqab/burka I'm sure the BNP don't give a toss about the difference.
The far right like Stephen Fry?
How does insulting women wearing this clothing help? When the powerful mock the oppressed it only increases their oppression. Boris Johnson is not a comedian, he is an MP and privy councillor. He thought it appropriate to laugh at people you believe are victims. You should be furious with him.
Right - a bit of a mish mash of a post, let me try to unpick it.
You don't want a burka ban but are open to "alternatives to stamp it out" because of the harm it does.
What harm does a woman walking along the road, face all but fully covered, do to you? Not to "society", but to you?
As for equality before the law, I don't necessarily disagree. I have no idea what the Barclays Bank policy on face coverings is but perhaps it discriminates by saying that for religious reasons, burkas are fine.
Perhaps they took a leaf out of these guys' book and understood that there is a religious sensitivity out there.
Look, you don't like the burqa. It makes you think that the woman is insulting you, personally, Philip Thompson (if that's your name). Totally understandable. But that is the society we have chosen to live in where people can make such choices without needing to worry about whether they insult sn*wfl*k*s.
Not damage to me. To her. By her oppressors. I oppose abuse and oppression but you can't even see it.
I couldn't give a flying f##k about religious sensitivity. This is the 21st century not the 11th. Medieval practices and sensibilities belong in the past.
I've had a long think about it, and have decided Boris is right - a burka and niqab ban is not the correct route to go down mainly due to enforcibility and also banning something is decidely illiberal. They're not exactly symbols of enlightened modernity either though now are they ?
For me, it's like free speech - the test is how keen you are on it when people are saying things you personally find abhorrent. People should be able to, within the limits of public decency and security, wear what _they_ like, not what _I_ like.
I don't like the Burqa or Niqab, and regard them as misogynist.
That doesn't require insulting the wearer though. The Letterbox joke is not a funny one, but while acceptable free speech for a comedian or a columnist, in the mouth of a senior politician who aspires to be Prime Minister it just confirms his unsuitability to high office.
Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.
Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.
Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.
No, Johnson has expressed a liberal opinion explaining in essence that he does not think that a tiny minority of Muslim women should be banned from covering themselves from head to toe, while at the same time making his personal distaste at their choices very clear. In the meantime, it was apparently OK for Stephen Fry and Paul Merton on HIGNFY or Polly Toynbee to rightly ridicule such choices. https://order-order.com/2018/08/10/bbc-guardian-also-mocked-burka/
Johnson insulted a section of society. He happened to use (surely a coincidence) the language of the far right in likening those who wear the niqab* to letterboxes. That is rude, bullying and, as the MCB bloke pointed out this morning, inflammatory. Because you know, if a senior politician can insult women who are minding their own business on the streets of London, then racist thugs can insult them and all is cushty, right?
*niqab/burka I'm sure the BNP don't give a toss about the difference.
The far right like Stephen Fry?
How does insulting women wearing this clothing help? When the powerful mock the oppressed it only increases their oppression. Boris Johnson is not a comedian, he is an MP and privy councillor. He thought it appropriate to laugh at people you believe are victims. You should be furious with him.
It helps by denormalising the garment. It's not acceptable to oppress women. Its not insulting women to call out when they are abused.
Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.
Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.
Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.
No, Johnson has expressed a liberal opinion explaining in essence that he does not think that a tiny minority of Muslim women should be banned from covering themselves from head to toe, while at the same time making his personal distaste at their choices very clear. In the meantime, it was apparently OK for Stephen Fry and Paul Merton on HIGNFY or Polly Toynbee to rightly ridicule such choices. https://order-order.com/2018/08/10/bbc-guardian-also-mocked-burka/
Johnson insulted a section of society. He happened to use (surely a coincidence) the language of the far right in likening those who wear the niqab* to letterboxes. That is rude, bullying and, as the MCB bloke pointed out this morning, inflammatory. Because you know, if a senior politician can insult women who are minding their own business on the streets of London, then racist thugs can insult them and all is cushty, right?
*niqab/burka I'm sure the BNP don't give a toss about the difference.
The far right like Stephen Fry?
How does insulting women wearing this clothing help? When the powerful mock the oppressed it only increases their oppression. Boris Johnson is not a comedian, he is an MP and privy councillor. He thought it appropriate to laugh at people you believe are victims. You should be furious with him.
It helps by denormalising the garment. It's not acceptable to oppress women. Its not insulting women to call out when they are abused.
So, you’re so opposed to the oppression of women that you believe it is acceptable to mock oppressed women. Got it.
Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.
Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.
Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.
No, Johnson has expressed a liberal opinion explaining in essence that he does not think that a tiny minority of Muslim women should be banned from covering themselves from head to toe, while at the same time making his personal distaste at their choices very clear. In the meantime, it was apparently OK for Stephen Fry and Paul Merton on HIGNFY or Polly Toynbee to rightly ridicule such choices. https://order-order.com/2018/08/10/bbc-guardian-also-mocked-burka/
Johnson insulted a section of society. He happened to use (surely a coincidence) the language of the far right in likening those who wear the niqab* to letterboxes. That is rude, bullying and, as the MCB bloke pointed out this morning, inflammatory. Because you know, if a senior politician can insult women who are minding their own business on the streets of London, then racist thugs can insult them and all is cushty, right?
*niqab/burka I'm sure the BNP don't give a toss about the difference.
The far right like Stephen Fry?
How does insulting women wearing this clothing help? When the powerful mock the oppressed it only increases their oppression. Boris Johnson is not a comedian, he is an MP and privy councillor. He thought it appropriate to laugh at people you believe are victims. You should be furious with him.
It helps by denormalising the garment. It's not acceptable to oppress women. Its not insulting women to call out when they are abused.
So, you’re so opposed to the oppression of women that you believe it is acceptable to mock oppressed women. Got it.
No not to mock the women, to mock the object of their oppression.
Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.
Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.
Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.
No, Johnson has expressed a liberal opinion explaining in essence that he does not think that a tiny minority of Muslim women should be banned from covering themselves from head to toe, while at the same time making his personal distaste at their choices very clear. In the meantime, it was apparently OK for Stephen Fry and Paul Merton on HIGNFY or Polly Toynbee to rightly ridicule such choices. https://order-order.com/2018/08/10/bbc-guardian-also-mocked-burka/
Johnsonu know, if a senior politician can insult women who are minding their own business on the streets of London, then racist thugs can insult them and all is cushty, right?
*niqab/burka I'm sure the BNP don't give a toss about the difference.
The far right like Stephen Fry?
How does insulting women wearing this clothing help? When the powerful mock the oppressed it only increases their oppression. Boris Johnson is not a comedian, he is an MP and privy councillor. He thought it appropriate to laugh at people you believe are victims. You should be furious with him.
It helps by denormalising the garment. It's not acceptable to oppress women. Its not insulting women to call out when they are abused.
So, you’re so opposed to the oppression of women that you believe it is acceptable to mock oppressed women. Got it.
No not to mock the women, to mock the object of their oppression.
Johnson did not mock the oppressor, he mocked the oppressed. He laughed at the way they look - or, as you would have it, are forced to look.
How many women in the UK wear burkhas? I don’t think I’ve ever seen one. We all now know that Bannon’s man was talking about the niqab, don’t we?
I would think the niqab might be worn on occasion by no more than 2% of Muslim women in the UK. I see it very occasionally in the supermarket and out in town, indeed I have had cause to speak on a handful of occasions with niqab wearing women, including one wittily joking with me about a bizarre situation that arose in the shop - I don't recall the details, but it was a pleasant surprise.
Whatever the underlying reasons for wearing it, I don't favour a general ban, but the right of businesses and employers to dictate visible faces locally owned n appropriate circumstances should be possible.
How many women in the UK wear burkhas? I don’t think I’ve ever seen one. We all now know that Bannon’s man was talking about the niqab, don’t we?
I would think the niqab might be worn on occasion by no more than 2% of Muslim women in the UK. I see it very occasionally in the supermarket and out in town, indeed I have had cause to speak on a handful of occasions with niqab wearing women, including one wittily joking with me about a bizarre situation that arose in the shop - I don't recall the details, but it was a pleasant surprise.
Whatever the underlying reasons for wearing it, I don't favour a general ban, but the right of businesses and employers to dictate visible faces locally owned n appropriate circumstances should be possible.
Absolutely. If you want to wear a niqab, then that is your choice. But don’t be surprised if it disqualifies you from certain kinds of employment.
I imagine eight other people will beat me to this but essentially the niqab has a slit so the eyes of the woman may be seen. The burqa has a veil so completely covers the whole body.
I live in East London and yes the niqab is seen (though not often) but I rarely see the burqa. I suspect those families where the burqa is worn are those where the woman or women rarely leave the house.
The nub of this is about the relationship between men and women in Islamic society, community and families. To this observer, the imposition of niqab and burqa is about the weakness and insecurity of Islamic men who fear an empowered educated and independent female society. Western society still has vestiges of it but we are trying to shake off this notion of women as somehow "subservient" to men.
Islamic or Muslim society faces a gender crisis as increasingly insecure men fall further back into the socially conservative bunker and fear change while women want education, opportunity and a genuine say in how society develops.
That's a huge and possibly crass generalisation - we simply don't know the extent to which the niqab or burqa are worn voluntarily or under duress. The assumption it's all a matter of duress may be false - yes, there may be a degree of cultural indoctrination but that happens in all society. You are "supposed" to dress smartly for work and in some offices you have to wear a jacket and tie. Does it make you any more productive? "Surveys" claiming it does are often published but how much are they any kind of genuine representation or another layer of that cultural indoctrination?
In the end, it comes back to identity and conformity - I do it because everyone else does.
Johnson is playing a blinder. He wants to be Prime Minister. He knows:
1. That regardless of how it turns out Brexit will be damned as a betrayal 2. That the next leader will have to lead the country through a political mess 3. That he is pro-leave enough to carry the ERG and just about sane/populist enough to carry the relative moderates 4. That dog whistle racism works rather well amongst many Tory voters. 5. That Tory MPs (the mk1 electorate) listen to Tory members (the mk2 electorate) who listen to Tory voters
He pitched his initial comments just on the right side of outrage - watch as people line up beside him to defend the right to abuse women/muslims. And the tea tray was brilliant - "I'm not commenting. But I'll humbly bring you all a brew in a charming mishmash of mugs to make me look human"
Right - a bit of a mish mash of a post, let me try to unpick it.
You don't want a burka ban but are open to "alternatives to stamp it out" because of the harm it does.
What harm does a woman walking along the road, face all but fully covered, do to you? Not to "society", but to you?
As for equality before the law, I don't necessarily disagree. I have no idea what the Barclays Bank policy on face coverings is but perhaps it discriminates by saying that for religious reasons, burkas are fine.
Perhaps they took a leaf out of these guys' book and understood that there is a religious sensitivity out there.
Look, you don't like the burqa. It makes you think that the woman is insulting you, personally, Philip Thompson (if that's your name). Totally understandable. But that is the society we have chosen to live in where people can make such choices without needing to worry about whether they insult sn*wfl*k*s.
Not damage to me. To her. By her oppressors. I oppose abuse and oppression but you can't even see it.
I couldn't give a flying f##k about religious sensitivity. This is the 21st century not the 11th. Medieval practices and sensibilities belong in the past.
Agree. If women in twenty-first century Britain want to cover themselves head to toe, it should be their choice. I shouldn't be able to ban it - but neither should should her husband/father, backed up by some cleric with attitudes umpteen centuries out of date, be able to cower her into forced wearing of it either.
I also have considerable misgivings that there is a silent political aspect to the wearing of the burka. It is a political statement that my religion is better than your religion/lack of religion. It is intended to offend MY religious decisions. And again, if women want to make that statement of their own volition, that is OK. But there are grounds to be very worried that Muslim women are not treated to the same freedom of expressions as non-Muslim women in twenty-first century Britain. Muslim men have way too much sway over Muslim women. Theirs is not a society of equality.
Very sensible bloke on the radio just now from the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that Boris' words have legitimised if not encouraged the discrimination and attacks on Muslim women in the UK and that is why there should be an investigation (ie whatever the "-ism") as it violates the Conservative Party's principles.
Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.
Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.
No, Johnson has expressed a liberal opinion explaining in essence that he does not think that a tiny minority of Muslim women should be banned from covering themselves from head to toe, while at the same time making his personal distaste at their choices very clear. In the meantime, it was apparently OK for Stephen Fry and Paul Merton on HIGNFY or Polly Toynbee to rightly ridicule such choices. https://order-order.com/2018/08/10/bbc-guardian-also-mocked-burka/
Johnson insulted a section of society. He happened to use (surely a coincidence) the language of the far right in likening those who wear the niqab* to letterboxes. That is rude, bullying and, as the MCB bloke pointed out this morning, inflammatory. Because you know, if a senior politician can insult women who are minding their own business on the streets of London, then racist thugs can insult them and all is cushty, right?
*niqab/burka I'm sure the BNP don't give a toss about the difference.
The far right like Stephen Fry?
How does insulting women wearing this clothing help? When the powerful mock the oppressed it only increases their oppression. Boris Johnson is not a comedian, he is an MP and privy councillor. He thought it appropriate to laugh at people you believe are victims. You should be furious with him.
It helps by denormalising the garment. It's not acceptable to oppress women. Its not insulting women to call out when they are abused.
When and where did the phrase "call out" become acceptable English? I see and hear it everywhere these days. It's just another of those horrible neologisms that passes into the language and demeans it.
Comments
B2B, data and analysis is where the profits are these days - believe me.
I suppose one use for the Mail is bedding material if you are forced to sleep rough (I'm told the Racing Post is better) but it seems the era of rough sleepers is coming to an end as the Prime Minister has once again decided throwing money from the magic money tree at a problem is the only solution. It's just the sort of thing a centre-left Labour Prime Minister would have done.
Will it "solve" the problem ? It depends on what you see as "the problem". I suspect in the summer you get more people sleeping rough anyway but come the autumn and winter it's really only for the hard-core and to assume all those sleeping rough want four walls and a roof is a misconception. There are plenty of places available for those who want shelter - it's not the Ritz or the forcible opening of homes left empty for months at a time but it's something.
There are a core of rough sleepers who, for various reasons, prefer to be on the streets. I'm not saying there aren't serious mental health issues at play and the best part of the £100m would be to provide that mental health support and care (I believe, although again it's anecdotal a disproportionate percentage of rough sleepers are ex-servicemen).
I'm afraid this smacks of political gimmickry - more a sense of "we must be seen to be doing something other than Brexit" and finding £100m down the back of Hammond's sofa to throw a little largesse at it. Who will get the money? Charities, local authorities?
The business section is informative too.
It seems a sensible policy
Oh it says you get the app ad free and the crossword. Plus you can see stories you missed. Not sure this is compelling.
But I do recall a story from when he and Rosberg were team mates. Rosberg turned up to his hotel and they thought he was Hamilton.
The German was amused, if a little surprised.
Paper newspapers cannot keep up with the news, but can be worth reading for the more thoughtful reviews, opinions and magazine articles.
@AlastairMeeks is right though, this is now an international marketplace for news and views, breaking national boundaries. This is true whether you favour Infowars or The Atlantic.
Certainly the majority of countries where homosexuality is still criminalised are in the Islamic Middle East and North Africa and indeed sex outside marriage is illegal in some Arab states
https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2018/08/lancashire-accounts-sign-delayed-over-ps50m-lobo-loan1?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_term=
LOBO loans were used by Newham and a few others as a source of finance because the interest rate offered was lower than the standard PWLB rate but it's not without some issues as some authorities are discovering.
https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/93/7/494/2906510
Just 50% of 18 to 34 year old British Asians think sex outside of marriage is acceptable compared to 90% of all Britons
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45133717
This, at least, acknowledges the problem and is a step in the right direction and I'll gladly acknowledge that but I'm worried this will all start in a blaze of publicity and then in a few months the money will dry up and local Councils will, as usual, be left with all the obligations and none of the resources (as has happened with Public Health).
Rough sleepers may not be a huge problem in Epping but travel to places like Stratford and Romford and you'll see what a significant problem it is in some areas.
Dr. Foxy, how much of that is just greater life expectancy leading to more transcription errors (at cellular division) and more cancer? Obviously young people get cancer too, but rates are higher with greater age.
Although, having written that, if other cancers are roughly steady then the rise in lymphoma specifically would indicate something else.
I am a bit surprised Red Bull didn't offer him a proper two year contract or suchlike. Maybe they did, but he prefers Vettel to Verstappen.
Boris has indeed legitimised an attack on "The Other", in this case Muslim women, in just the same way as Jezza has with his Jew problem.
Of course you'd have to be an idiot not to see this but there are such people out there, some even on PB.
https://twitter.com/abradacabla/status/1028910570689449984
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1028898684661059584
Quite frankly ita condescending and discriminatory to attempt to link that evil, oppressive, misogynistic, fundamentalist garb with Muslim women. Most Muslim women are more than capable of not shackling themselves under that fundamentalist nonsense and we should praise that not pander to the extremists who think it is normal.
The whole story has received more attention than I imagine he thought it would. It may well be into Voltaire territory: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
In the past Ken Clarke, Jack Straw and Emily Thornberry have made comments (less oafish but still sceptical) about the niqab/burqa. The lack of condemnation then raises suspicions this is more about the Conservative leadership and/or the increasing degree of censorship.
Sadly, Boris is a vainglorious buffoon whose intentions and actions revolve entirely around himself. But free speech and the wildly variant view taken by the media and political class to someone saying some words about a garment compared to the removal of work from women (against their will, and in the name of feminism to boot) suggests that puritanism is very fashionable.
That was originally a control measure in the 1920s, but has potential for the Islamic agenda in the country to be changed very rapidly.
"In Turkey, the Directorate of Religious Affairs (Turkish: Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı, normally referred to simply as the Diyanet) is an official state institution established in 1924 under article 136 of the Constitution of Turkey by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey as a successor to the Shaykh al-Islām after the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate.
As specified by law, the duties of the Diyanet are “to execute the works concerning the beliefs, worship, and ethics of Islam, enlighten the public about their religion, and administer the sacred worshiping places”. The Diyanet drafts a weekly sermon delivered at the nation’s 85,000 mosques and more than 2,000 mosques abroad that function under the directorate. It provides Quranic education for children and trains and employs all of Turkey’s imams, who are technically considered civil servants. It has been criticized for ignoring the Islamic creed of the 33–40% of Turkey's population that is not Hanafi Sunni Muslim."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate_of_Religious_Affairs
My daily read is of course the Racing Post - a gentleman could read nothing else.
Although I appreciate we are discussing the Daily Mail on here, and your ill-informed rant fits in well with their Dacre-era ethos, you should understand that we here in the UK (you are British, aren't you?) don't really take to being told what we should or shouldn't wear
In addition, if a senior politician, even an utter, utter twat of a senior politician uses far right dog whistles to pick on as you yourself say a small minority of the population, this is nothing that people such as yourself should be cheering.
Or perhaps you are the kind of person who would cheer on someone who is bullying a weaker, more vulnerable member of society.
It's sad to see once great papers like the Telegraph descend into a ghastly purveyor of listicles and half-baked opinion columns, but presumably they have data in support of this business model, even if the rationale escapes plebs like me.
Over the last twenty odd years, we've segued from an information economy to an attention economy, which presumably (at least in part) accounts for the rise in emotion-based rather than fact-based reporting.
The argument against the burkha is that it oppresses women. It's not clear to me how attacking those women is adding anything constructive to the debate, which Johnson claims to be in favour of - before refusing to talk about it when asked by the press.
And when one accepts the party whip one also accepts constraints on public statements, so 'free speech' is not at issue, merely Johnson's leadership ambitions.
I did say Boris was a vainglorious buffoon.
There is absolutely nothing far right about opposing the burka.
But they have been doing some very expensive Air Miles promotions for a number of years.
The burka is just something you don't happen to like for any number of conflated and ill-thought out reasons.
Out in the suburbs they deliver plenty to East Ham but the poor sellers can't shift them as people returning from London already have a copy. Yes, a few locals will pick one up but they are also available at our local Tesco and Sainsbury and if I miss the previous night's paper I can always pick it up at Sainsbury's the next morning.
The paper reaches Surbiton at 4.30pm but again not many takers as the bulk of those travelling are coming back from London. As I'm sure George Osborne won't tell us (and he probably doesn't know), I suspect there are several thousand left unread every day.
The paper makes its dosh from advertising so I suppose it doesn't really matter.
https://order-order.com/2018/08/10/bbc-guardian-also-mocked-burka/
As for the Muslim Council of Britain, if you are going to hang on their every word are you also then prepared to endorse their support for Sharia courts and the resultant oppression of womens rights in the UK?
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/sharia-law-uk-courts-muslim-women-rights-few-compared-islamic-countries-religious-rulings-quran-a8064796.html
They're not exactly symbols of enlightened modernity either though now are they ?
If you think its acceptable to ban a balaclava for a well thought through reason in eg a court house, school, bank or airport then it should be equally acceptable to ban a worse and more oppressive garment in those locations.
Job done.
Imagine the outrage if he'd said he wanted to ban them?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/02/bnps-last-district-councillor-bows-out-but-insists-party-will-rise-again
The goodwill for Chequers from centre left Remainers like myself was palpable on PB the day after the event - that constituency had no reason to go Tory in 2017, but if the Tories can show that they understand and have ideas for the fabric of Britain then it's game on in 2022.
Losses to the UKIP/handsitting, which in themselves will depend on how hard the betrayal narrative takes hold, can be offset by centrist Remainy support by 2022 if the Tories show such understanding and boldness. It's still a mighty big ask for a government with no majority, no shortage of swivel eyed outriders and a limited grasp of the lives of public service end users, but I would be very happy for it to happen.
*niqab/burka I'm sure the BNP don't give a toss about the difference.
As a liberal I don't believe in a burka ban but I could be open to it if alternatives don't work to stamp it out, because of the harm it causes, like backing the smoking indoors ban.
However I do believe in equality before the law and if there is a sound reason for a ban on face coverings like balaclavas then that should apply equally to fundamentalist garbs too.
Do you honestly claim that the niqab is just a fashion choice and not fundamentalist, illiberal misogynis?
That doesn't require insulting the wearer though. The Letterbox joke is not a funny one, but while acceptable free speech for a comedian or a columnist, in the mouth of a senior politician who aspires to be Prime Minister it just confirms his unsuitability to high office.
You don't want a burka ban but are open to "alternatives to stamp it out" because of the harm it does.
What harm does a woman walking along the road, face all but fully covered, do to you? Not to "society", but to you?
As for equality before the law, I don't necessarily disagree. I have no idea what the Barclays Bank policy on face coverings is but perhaps it discriminates by saying that for religious reasons, burkas are fine.
Perhaps they took a leaf out of these guys' book and understood that there is a religious sensitivity out there.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/11/article-2246410-16760C46000005DC-118_634x426.jpg
Look, you don't like the burqa. It makes you think that the woman is insulting you, personally, Philip Thompson (if that's your name). Totally understandable. But that is the society we have chosen to live in where people can make such choices without needing to worry about whether they insult sn*wfl*k*s.
I couldn't give a flying f##k about religious sensitivity. This is the 21st century not the 11th. Medieval practices and sensibilities belong in the past.
Whatever the underlying reasons for wearing it, I don't favour a general ban, but the right of businesses and employers to dictate visible faces locally owned n appropriate circumstances should be possible.
I live in East London and yes the niqab is seen (though not often) but I rarely see the burqa. I suspect those families where the burqa is worn are those where the woman or women rarely leave the house.
The nub of this is about the relationship between men and women in Islamic society, community and families. To this observer, the imposition of niqab and burqa is about the weakness and insecurity of Islamic men who fear an empowered educated and independent female society. Western society still has vestiges of it but we are trying to shake off this notion of women as somehow "subservient" to men.
Islamic or Muslim society faces a gender crisis as increasingly insecure men fall further back into the socially conservative bunker and fear change while women want education, opportunity and a genuine say in how society develops.
That's a huge and possibly crass generalisation - we simply don't know the extent to which the niqab or burqa are worn voluntarily or under duress. The assumption it's all a matter of duress may be false - yes, there may be a degree of cultural indoctrination but that happens in all society. You are "supposed" to dress smartly for work and in some offices you have to wear a jacket and tie. Does it make you any more productive? "Surveys" claiming it does are often published but how much are they any kind of genuine representation or another layer of that cultural indoctrination?
In the end, it comes back to identity and conformity - I do it because everyone else does.
Standing by to oppression is not a good thing. Equating oppression to being a mere fashion choice is far worse.
1. That regardless of how it turns out Brexit will be damned as a betrayal
2. That the next leader will have to lead the country through a political mess
3. That he is pro-leave enough to carry the ERG and just about sane/populist enough to carry the relative moderates
4. That dog whistle racism works rather well amongst many Tory voters.
5. That Tory MPs (the mk1 electorate) listen to Tory members (the mk2 electorate) who listen to Tory voters
He pitched his initial comments just on the right side of outrage - watch as people line up beside him to defend the right to abuse women/muslims. And the tea tray was brilliant - "I'm not commenting. But I'll humbly bring you all a brew in a charming mishmash of mugs to make me look human"
I also have considerable misgivings that there is a silent political aspect to the wearing of the burka. It is a political statement that my religion is better than your religion/lack of religion. It is intended to offend MY religious decisions. And again, if women want to make that statement of their own volition, that is OK. But there are grounds to be very worried that Muslim women are not treated to the same freedom of expressions as non-Muslim women in twenty-first century Britain. Muslim men have way too much sway over Muslim women. Theirs is not a society of equality.