Indeed, but that was a different party. It's been infiltrated by extremists, and then gutted from the inside-out.
This ought to have been obvious when Nick Griffin endorsed Corbyn.
By the Griffin 'endorsement' do you mean the time he said he was thinking of voting Labour because Corbyn was unwilling to support military action against Assad in response to his use of chemical weapons?
The majority of British Muslims (52%) according to polling think gay people should be locked up (compared to only 5% of the general population) and a further 30% did not have an opinion on the matter. Four in ten thought wives should always obey their husbands.
It does make one wonder what drives the atheist Chinese government, the Hindu nationalist government in India (vs Pakistan), the Burmese and to a less extent Thai Buddhist nations and the Israeli Jewish state to not look too favourably on their Muslim minorities or neighbouring states. Let alone how Christians including Yazidis in the middle east may feel too.
Given this seems to be a global issue what can we do to promote greater tolerance?
If you believe that Muslims are on the whole backward primitives whose values are out of step with 'ours' why not just say that?
It's not anti-semitic so you won't get jumped on.
That is a rather simplistic view. I am quite willing to say Islam is institutionally archaic, misogynistic and homophobic, but then I would suggest the Catholic Church and many Evangelical churches too, as well as some orthodox Judaism.
That doesn't mean that Individuals are inevitably archaic, misogynistic and homophobic in those organisations. The nessecary thing in liberal democracies is to be tolerant and respectful to beliefs, religious or secular, of others whether one is in agreement or disagreement with them, and to treat people equally.
I think this is just about spot on. My only comment would be that, as an atheist, I think we give way too much latitude to religious groups and allow them to do things in the name of their religion that we would never allow for any other community grouping.
But I still feel that all religious groups exert an unwelcome and excessive amount of influence on our society and our institutions.
If it was not for religious groups half our food Banks and homeless hostels would be gone
I don't bother arguing with anti-religious people. Some do like black and white, and seem to be experts on what I think. Pride is one of the great sins and we all still indulge in it. I'm Catholic but I'd be very happy with married priests and priestesses. Even a female Pope.
There's always a desire for perfection, but we aren't perfect. If we were, we wouldn't need help. This misplaced pride can often develop into arrogance. Atheists as well as theists. I'm not so arrogant that I can envisage science ever explaining everything. We have a better understanding than we used to have about 5% of the content of this universe, but it's baby steps and still subject to some ratification.
As for why, rather than how, you pays your money and ...
From the polling this morning the 'will of the people' is to extend Article 50 by 3 months then vote for May's Deal with some guarantee on the backstop added on.
The Deal also ensures access to the single market, albeit not membership of it and restricts free movement to reduce immigration so best respects the views of Remain and Leave voters as given by the 2016 Comres poll
Have you a link to todays polling. I must have missed it. Thank you
Yes the voters are warning to May's Deal, they clearly do not want No Deal or a long extension of Article 50 and delay to Brexit either, so the Deal it will have to be
Not so much warming to it, as realising they can live with it. It's the second best option for a very large number of people.
Yes most voters do not want No Deal or EUref2 or indefinite Art 50 extension they just want Brexit done without too much damage
Completely off topic (or is it) but does anyone else think that Theresa May might have just played a blinder yesterday?
If she plays this right, I can see the UK leaving on the 30th June with her Deal (unamended).
The way I see it:
12th March - she loses the Meaningful Vote again, by another heavy margin. Listening to Iain Duncan Smith frothing last night on PM, its clear the ERG are never going to support it. 13th March - Leaving with no deal is also heavily defeated. 14th March - By a narrow margin, Parliament votes to extend Article 50.
The EU agree such an extension and off May goes, back and forth throughout April and May and gets the sum total of naff all. Crucially, but importantly, we fail to hold EU Parliamentary elections.
Early/Mid June - another vote on her Deal. But this time it really is Deal or No Deal. We can't revoke and remain because we have no MEPs. We can't extend further for the same reason.
So suddenly, a huge number of remainer MPs are trapped. And therefore they abandon all pretence of 'supporting a second referendum' and the Deal goes through.
Has she played a blinder?
Of course, I also realise that this path is fraught with problems. What if MPs *don't* vote to extend A50? What if the EU don't? What if, getting wind of this plan/idea, Remainers and ERG no dealers VONC their own government? Or even the EU, still trying to get us to Remain, offer to let us hold emergency elections in (say) September if we only agree to Remain? Or maybe MacMillans "Events dear boy, events" happen?
Agree on conclusion but more likely ERG will have to cave as if we get an extension EUref2 becomes more likely than No Deal given the Commons median MP is a soft Brexiteer
The question as to how the EU Parliament unwravels the reallocation of the UK MEPs after the other countries have elected theirs is however an interesting one.
It could keep the savings and bump up MEPs lunch expenses
A colleague of mine was arrested in Jakarta yesterday. He was wearing an old T shirt which bore the flags of many countries from around the world. including, as it happened, the old soviet flag with the hammer and sickle.
Turns out it is illegal in Indonesia to display any symbols of communism. He was released with a warning 3 hours later and had no complaints at all about his treatment. But it serves as a warning for anyone travelling there to be aware of their local laws, however obscure.
Anyone travelling anywhere should spend five minutes researching local laws and look at things Brits get arrested for doing. Huge problem in my part of the world.
Ireland suddenly punching above its weight and no fear of trampling egos in London.
Has something changed in the geopolitical order?
I don't think that Dublin demanding a public enquiry into this is anything new. Such demands were made regarding Bloody Sunday from the moment it happened. Until 1987 they had a long-standing defence against extradition of suspects who could plead that an act of violence in Northern Ireland or Britain was a political offence. Standing up to London has always been the norm in Ireland for sound electoral reasons. It had become less so in recent years but Brexit has poisoned the well.
Be interesting to see how many of them clapping have spent years door knocking and doing leaflets, rather than just joining for £3 to support Jezza and attack jews.
I'd be interested to know that too. I don't know what the answer would be.
A colleague of mine was arrested in Jakarta yesterday. He was wearing an old T shirt which bore the flags of many countries from around the world. including, as it happened, the old soviet flag with the hammer and sickle.
Turns out it is illegal in Indonesia to display any symbols of communism. He was released with a warning 3 hours later and had no complaints at all about his treatment. But it serves as a warning for anyone travelling there to be aware of their local laws, however obscure.
It’s a hangover from the mid-60s coup attempt when Indonesia had the second biggest Communist Party in the world - and globally is very rare - it’s not part of the FCO advice on Indonesia and should be - tourists usually just get a telling off and sent on their way -but if they believed somebody was trying to promote communism they’d be in very serious trouble.
Indeed. Would perhaps have been a reasonable analysis but for that unnecessary and wildly inaccurate slur on someone who, whatever one thinks of his political beliefs, never wavered in his patriotism.
I thought it was a good post too. But the kiss off sentence was oddly jarring.
Foot was a soviet spy in the same way that Dylan lived in Crouch End.
The majority of British Muslims (52%) according to polling think gay people should be locked up (compared to only 5% of the general population) and a further 30% did not have an opinion on the matter. Four in ten thought wives should always obey their husbands.
It does make one wonder what drives the atheist Chinese government, the Hindu nationalist government in India (vs Pakistan), the Burmese and to a less extent Thai Buddhist nations and the Israeli Jewish state to not look too favourably on their Muslim minorities or neighbouring states. Let alone how Christians including Yazidis in the middle east may feel too.
Given this seems to be a global issue what can we do to promote greater tolerance?
If you believe that Muslims are on the whole backward primitives whose values are out of step with 'ours' why not just say that?
It's not anti-semitic so you won't get jumped on.
That doesn't mean that Individuals are inevitably archaic, misogynistic and homophobic in those organisations.
Not inevitably, but the more you define yourself by a religion and the more devout that religion claims itself to be, the greater the risk that followers (or a good proportion of them) will hold those views. Regardless of the religion.
Certainly, but many followers, even fairly devout ones will not. To tar all Muslims with the attributes of intolerence is as unreasonable as to hold that I am responsible or share the beliefs of Nigel Farage, because we are both white males of similar age who quite like a pint.
Indeed. Would perhaps have been a reasonable analysis but for that unnecessary and wildly inaccurate slur on someone who, whatever one thinks of his political beliefs, never wavered in his patriotism.
I thought it was a good post too. But the kiss off sentence was oddly jarring.
Foot was a soviet spy in the same way that Dylan lived in Crouch End.
He went to the wrong embassy and ended up staying for borscht and a few songs?
Completely off topic (or is it) but does anyone else think that Theresa May might have just played a blinder yesterday?
If she plays this right, I can see the UK leaving on the 30th June with her Deal (unamended).
The way I see it:
12th March - she loses the Meaningful Vote again, by another heavy margin. Listening to Iain Duncan Smith frothing last night on PM, its clear the ERG are never going to support it. 13th March - Leaving with no deal is also heavily defeated. 14th March - By a narrow margin, Parliament votes to extend Article 50.
The EU agree such an extension and off May goes, back and forth throughout April and May and gets the sum total of naff all. Crucially, but importantly, we fail to hold EU Parliamentary elections.
Early/Mid June - another vote on her Deal. But this time it really is Deal or No Deal. We can't revoke and remain because we have no MEPs. We can't extend further for the same reason.
So suddenly, a huge number of remainer MPs are trapped. And therefore they abandon all pretence of 'supporting a second referendum' and the Deal goes through.
Has she played a blinder?
Of course, I also realise that this path is fraught with problems. What if MPs *don't* vote to extend A50? What if the EU don't? What if, getting wind of this plan/idea, Remainers and ERG no dealers VONC their own government? Or even the EU, still trying to get us to Remain, offer to let us hold emergency elections in (say) September if we only agree to Remain? Or maybe MacMillans "Events dear boy, events" happen?
Other problems: 1) The EU doesn't have to accept her dates, why would they let the timebomb she's setting blow up in their elections? If they tell her she'll need a shorter or longer extension she'll have to suck it up 2) Remainers know she doesn't have to do No Deal, she can revoke 3) The Tories get the blame for No Deal, Lab and TIG potentially have political upside
Completely off topic (or is it) but does anyone else think that Theresa May might have just played a blinder yesterday?
If she plays this right, I can see the UK leaving on the 30th June with her Deal (unamended).
The way I see it:
12th March - she loses the Meaningful Vote again, by another heavy margin. Listening to Iain Duncan Smith frothing last night on PM, its clear the ERG are never going to support it. 13th March - Leaving with no deal is also heavily defeated. 14th March - By a narrow margin, Parliament votes to extend Article 50.
The EU agree such an extension and off May goes, back and forth throughout April and May and gets the sum total of naff all. Crucially, but importantly, we fail to hold EU Parliamentary elections.
Early/Mid June - another vote on her Deal. But this time it really is Deal or No Deal. We can't revoke and remain because we have no MEPs. We can't extend further for the same reason.
So suddenly, a huge number of remainer MPs are trapped. And therefore they abandon all pretence of 'supporting a second referendum' and the Deal goes through.
Has she played a blinder?
Of course, I also realise that this path is fraught with problems. What if MPs *don't* vote to extend A50? What if the EU don't? What if, getting wind of this plan/idea, Remainers and ERG no dealers VONC their own government? Or even the EU, still trying to get us to Remain, offer to let us hold emergency elections in (say) September if we only agree to Remain? Or maybe MacMillans "Events dear boy, events" happen?
Agree on conclusion but more likely ERG will have to cave as if we get an extension EUref2 becomes more likely than No Deal given the Commons median MP is a soft Brexiteer
Completely off topic (or is it) but does anyone else think that Theresa May might have just played a blinder yesterday?
If she plays this right, I can see the UK leaving on the 30th June with her Deal (unamended).
The way I see it:
12th March - she loses the Meaningful Vote again, by another heavy margin. Listening to Iain Duncan Smith frothing last night on PM, its clear the ERG are never going to support it. 13th March - Leaving with no deal is also heavily defeated. 14th March - By a narrow margin, Parliament votes to extend Article 50.
The EU agree such an extension and off May goes, back and forth throughout April and May and gets the sum total of naff all. Crucially, but importantly, we fail to hold EU Parliamentary elections.
Early/Mid June - another vote on her Deal. But this time it really is Deal or No Deal. We can't revoke and remain because we have no MEPs. We can't extend further for the same reason.
So suddenly, a huge number of remainer MPs are trapped. And therefore they abandon all pretence of 'supporting a second referendum' and the Deal goes through.
Has she played a blinder?
Of course, I also realise that this path is fraught with problems. What if MPs *don't* vote to extend A50? What if the EU don't? What if, getting wind of this plan/idea, Remainers and ERG no dealers VONC their own government? Or even the EU, still trying to get us to Remain, offer to let us hold emergency elections in (say) September if we only agree to Remain? Or maybe MacMillans "Events dear boy, events" happen?
Agree on conclusion but more likely ERG will have to cave as if we get an extension EUref2 becomes more likely than No Deal given the Commons median MP is a soft Brexiteer
No - if the extension is only to June 30, there isn't time for an EURef2. There'd only be three and a half months from the March 14 vote to the new Brexit Date: that's nothing like long enough to pass a Bill for the new referendum, allow campaign groups to organise and register, and then hold the vote. I reckon you'd need at least six months - which of course means into the new EP term.
If the extension is for only 3 months, it really does become May's Deal / No Deal / Revoke.
The Catholic Church has predatory, priestly paedophiles. The response was to hide the fact by denying it and hoping it goes away. Unfortunately, this is the default response for any large organisation seeking to protect its reputation
The Labour Party has anti semites and their response is the same with added viciousness. When will they come into the 21st century?
Anyone travelling anywhere should spend five minutes researching local laws and look at things Brits get arrested for doing. Huge problem in my part of the world.
God yes. That story a while back of the guy whose hand brushed against another guy's ass in a bar (something we've all done, and some of us quite often) and it led to serious time in jail.
Anecdote time. This won't interest all the anti-business Tories on here, but I have had a couple of conversations with clients in manufacturing this week that indicate order volumes are dropping.
It's all rather reminiscent of the days before the Euro when boom and bust was in full swing.
My feeling is that it is pretty much all down to currency rather than Brexit.
By the Griffin 'endorsement' do you mean the time he said he was thinking of voting Labour because Corbyn was unwilling to support military action against Assad in response to his use of chemical weapons?
No - if the extension is only to June 30, there isn't time for an EURef2. There'd only be three and a half months from the March 14 vote to the new Brexit Date: that's nothing like long enough to pass a Bill for the new referendum, allow campaign groups to organise and register, and then hold the vote. I reckon you'd need at least six months - which of course means into the new EP term.
If the extension is for only 3 months, it really does become May's Deal / No Deal / Revoke.
But another extension would be granted for either REF2 or GE - do you not think?
The labour party is beyond saving...these are the responses to Margaret Hodge just now:
Have you seen what he said in context? You're repeating a media misrepresentation of the event, whether deliberate or not.
Leave now.
Stop fretting, the Israelis have bought their own party now.
Why don't you shut it. Nearly all the false allegations of AS are made by yourself to cover up for the crimes against humanity committed by the Israeli regime. #PalestineLives
How are you still a thing? Go away.
He's twice the MP you'll ever be. Deep down you know it.
Yawn . . . another day another witch hunter general trying to destroy Labour. When are you joining the ‘Centrists’? The sooner the better as far as I’m concerned.
Completely off topic (or is it) but does anyone else think that Theresa May might have just played a blinder yesterday?
If she plays this right, I can see the UK leaving on the 30th June with her Deal (unamended).
So suddenly, a huge number of remainer MPs are trapped. And therefore they abandon all pretence of 'supporting a second referendum' and the Deal goes through.
Has she played a blinder?
Of course, I also realise that this path is fraught with problems. What if MPs *don't* vote to extend A50? What if the EU don't? What if, getting wind of this plan/idea, Remainers and ERG no dealers VONC their own government? Or even the EU, still trying to get us to Remain, offer to let us hold emergency elections in (say) September if we only agree to Remain? Or maybe MacMillans "Events dear boy, events" happen?
Agree on conclusion but more likely ERG will have to cave as if we get an extension EUref2 becomes more likely than No Deal given the Commons median MP is a soft Brexiteer
The question as to how the EU Parliament unwravels the reallocation of the UK MEPs after the other countries have elected theirs is however an interesting one.
It could keep the savings and bump up MEPs lunch expenses
My suspicion is if the threat of no deal is mutually bad enough to get an extension now, then a way will be found if another is still needed in June (because fudge/can-kicking/last-minute deals hallmarks of blah blah blah). I also think that blinking on an extension may well embolden some of those on both sides who'd otherwise be scared to keep holding out against Deal.
I absolutely get that the elections/lack thereof is a big deal which needs some pointy heads working on it (my guess is we'd be expected to go without until a permanent solution was reached one way or the other; and some sort of treaty would be needed to make that happen).
But if the EU was in the mood for "erm.. nah, too difficult, can't be arsed, let's crash it", I suspect they'd be playing that card on March 29th rather than faffing around any longer.
Tom Watson's efforts earlier this week threatened popcorn maker shares but clearly the wingnut in chief saw this and went 'hold my beer'...
This plus the Cohen testimony later. I knew I should have started stockpiling.
Cohen is a blowhard and liar, it will just reinforce the Democrat portrait of the Donald but be dismissed as the ravings of a liar about to do time. The fun begins once Muekker reports no collusion and trump decslsses the FISA details
The majority of British Muslims (52%) according to polling think gay people should be locked up (compared to only 5% of the general population) and a further 30% did not have an opinion on the matter. Four in ten thought wives should always obey their husbands.
It does make one wonder what drives the atheist Chinese government, the Hindu nationalist government in India (vs Pakistan), the Burmese and to a less extent Thai Buddhist nations and the Israeli Jewish state to not look too favourably on their Muslim minorities or neighbouring states. Let alone how Christians including Yazidis in the middle east may feel too.
Given this seems to be a global issue what can we do to promote greater tolerance?
If you believe that Muslims are on the whole backward primitives whose values are out of step with 'ours' why not just say that?
It's not anti-semitic so you won't get jumped on.
That is a rather simplistic view. I am quite willing to say Islam is institutionally archaic, misogynistic and homophobic, but then I would suggest the Catholic Church and many Evangelical churches too, as well as some orthodox Judaism.
That doesn't mean that Individuals are inevitably archaic, misogynistic and homophobic in those organisations. The nessecary thing in liberal democracies is to be tolerant and respectful to beliefs, religious or secular, of others whether one is in agreement or disagreement with them, and to treat people equally.
I think this is just about spot on. My only comment would be that, as an atheist, I think we give way too much latitude to religious groups and allow them to do things in the name of their religion that we would never allow for any other community grouping.
But I still feel that all religious groups exert an unwelcome and excessive amount of influence on our society and our institutions.
If it was not for religious groups half our food Banks and homeless hostels would be gone
No they wouldn't. People would still go out and help their neighbours. The idea that charity and helping your fellow man is in any way a reserve of the religious is simply wrong.
A colleague of mine was arrested in Jakarta yesterday. He was wearing an old T shirt which bore the flags of many countries from around the world. including, as it happened, the old soviet flag with the hammer and sickle.
Turns out it is illegal in Indonesia to display any symbols of communism. He was released with a warning 3 hours later and had no complaints at all about his treatment. But it serves as a warning for anyone travelling there to be aware of their local laws, however obscure.
Certainly Mr Palmer should be advised to leave his lucky hammer and sickle underwear at home, should he ever go there.
1) As you mention, this doesn't target Jews specifically; banning medically unnecessary circumcisions of children would impact some aspect of all the Abrahamic faiths. Same with end of halal / kosher meat killing.
2) Faith schools of all stripes are pretty bad. But again, if Lab enacted strict policies against faith schools (which I haven't seen proposed but would love to see), it wouldn't be targeting Jews specifically.
3) Is Labour creating this air of fear or is the press? Yes, the upper echelons of the Lab party are doing the politics of this super badly, but as I stated, it is a perception issue not a more AS people are lab than elsewhere issue. The stats suggest roughly 20-25% of the UK hold AS tropes as true, and that most parties harbour a roughly equal percentage of people who believe that.
4) Look, we can't say "conflating Israel and Jewish people is AS" and then use a position on Israel as an example of Labour being AS. The left feel that the creation of Israel by colonial powers post war, and the displacement of the Palestinian people through illegal means is bad. The left also feel this needs to be talked about because it is mostly funded by the US. Same reason the left complain a lot about the Saudis (although the historic reasons of support are obvs different)
5) Does Lab have an issue with AS? Yes. Does it have an unique issue with AS? I would say no. What it does have is unique scrutiny around AS specifically, and really bad political reactions to that scrutiny.
The majority of British Muslims (52%) according to polling think gay people should be locked up (compared to only 5% of the general population) and a further 30% did not have an opinion on the matter. Four in ten thought wives should always obey their husbands.
It does make one wonder what drives the atheist Chinese government, the Hindu nationalist government in India (vs Pakistan), the Burmese and to a less extent Thai Buddhist nations and the Israeli Jewish state to not look too favourably on their Muslim minorities or neighbouring states. Let alone how Christians including Yazidis in the middle east may feel too.
Given this seems to be a global issue what can we do to promote greater tolerance?
If you believe that Muslims are on the whole backward primitives whose values are out of step with 'ours' why not just say that?
It's not anti-semitic so you won't get jumped on.
That is a rather simplistic view. I am quite willing to say Islam is institutionally archaic, misogynistic and homophobic, but then I would suggest the Catholic Church and many Evangelical churches too, as well as some orthodox Judaism.
That doesn't mean that Individuals are inevitably archaic, misogynistic and homophobic in those organisations. The nessecary thing in liberal democracies is to be tolerant and respectful to beliefs, religious or secular, of others whether one is in agreement or disagreement with them, and to treat people equally.
I think this is just about spot on. My only comment would be that, as an atheist, I think we give way too much latitude to religious groups and allow them to do things in the name of their religion that we would never allow for any other community grouping.
But I still feel that all religious groups exert an unwelcome and excessive amount of influence on our society and our institutions.
If it was not for religious groups half our food Banks and homeless hostels would be gone
No they wouldn't. People would still go out and help their neighbours. The idea that charity and helping your fellow man is in any way a reserve of the religious is simply wrong.
It's not the preserve of the religious, but a lot of it is done by the religious, which is why they have influence/
I don't bother arguing with anti-religious people. Some do like black and white, and seem to be experts on what I think. Pride is one of the great sins and we all still indulge in it. I'm Catholic but I'd be very happy with married priests and priestesses. Even a female Pope.
There's always a desire for perfection, but we aren't perfect. If we were, we wouldn't need help. This misplaced pride can often develop into arrogance. Atheists as well as theists. I'm not so arrogant that I can envisage science ever explaining everything. We have a better understanding than we used to have about 5% of the content of this universe, but it's baby steps and still subject to some ratification.
As for why, rather than how, you pays your money and ...
The thing is atheists don't claim to be perfect, whereas the Catholic Church, for a very long time, did and kinda still tries to.
The majority of British Muslims (52%) according to polling think gay people should be locked up (compared to only 5% of the general population) and a further 30% did not have an opinion on the matter. Four in ten thought wives should always obey their husbands.
It does make one wonder what drives the atheist Chinese government, the Hindu nationalist government in India (vs Pakistan), the Burmese and to a less extent Thai Buddhist nations and the Israeli Jewish state to not look too favourably on their Muslim minorities or neighbouring states. Let alone how Christians including Yazidis in the middle east may feel too.
Given this seems to be a global issue what can we do to promote greater tolerance?
If you believe that Muslims are on the whole backward primitives whose values are out of step with 'ours' why not just say that?
It's not anti-semitic so you won't get jumped on.
That is a rather simplistic view. I am quite willing to say Islam is institutionally archaic, misogynistic and homophobic, but then I would suggest the Catholic Church and many Evangelical churches too, as well as some orthodox Judaism.
That doesn't mean that Individuals are inevitably archaic, misogynistic and homophobic in those organisations. The nessecary thing in liberal democracies is to be tolerant and respectful to beliefs, religious or secular, of others whether one is in agreement or disagreement with them, and to treat people equally.
I think this is just about spot on. My only comment would be that, as an atheist, I think we give way too much latitude to religious groups and allow them to do things in the name of their religion that we would never allow for any other community grouping.
But I still feel that all religious groups exert an unwelcome and excessive amount of influence on our society and our institutions.
If it was not for religious groups half our food Banks and homeless hostels would be gone
No they wouldn't. People would still go out and help their neighbours. The idea that charity and helping your fellow man is in any way a reserve of the religious is simply wrong.
Clearly altruism and charity is not solely motivated by religion, but equally clearly all major religions actively support, encourage, finance and staff charitable activities.
Ireland suddenly punching above its weight and no fear of trampling egos in London.
Has something changed in the geopolitical order?
They've been demanding this for decades.
Wasn’t the whole point of the ‘peace process’ that we left the past in the past?
The point being that *we* are meant to leave the past in the past. Irish Republicans have no intention of doing so.
Or perhaps we should have an inquiry.
After all, we’ve already admitted that the British government colluded in his murder.
Doesn’t sound like cricket to me.
We've made no such admission. Nor did Ser Desmond da Silva reach that conclusion.
But, if we are to have such enquiries, then it would seem only fair that we should enquire into unsolved killings by all parties to the conflict.
You probably know more about this me.
However I would suggest this might be different.
- This is a case of alleged state sponsored (or colluded) killing
- The British government already promised to hold an enquiry in 2001, but reneged.
- David Cameron has apparently admitted there was collusion in his meeting with the Finacune family
- The Supreme Court has now found the government in breach of the ECHR convention on adequately investigating cases of real or alleged state sponsored killing.
Ireland suddenly punching above its weight and no fear of trampling egos in London.
Has something changed in the geopolitical order?
They've been demanding this for decades.
Wasn’t the whole point of the ‘peace process’ that we left the past in the past?
The point being that *we* are meant to leave the past in the past. Irish Republicans have no intention of doing so.
Or perhaps we should have an inquiry.
After all, we’ve already admitted that the British government colluded in his murder.
Doesn’t sound like cricket to me.
We've made no such admission. Nor did Ser Desmond da Silva reach that conclusion.
But, if we are to have such enquiries, then it would seem only fair that we should enquire into unsolved killings by all parties to the conflict.
You probably know more about this me.
However I would suggest this might be different.
- This is a case of alleged state sponsored (or colluded) killing
- The British government already promised to hold an enquiry in 2001, but reneged.
- David Cameron has apparently admitted there was collusion in his meeting with the Finacune family
- The Supreme Court has now found the government in breach of the ECHR convention on adequately investigating cases of real or alleged state sponsored killing.
I think Sean's issue was your allegation that we've admitted government collusion.
There was collusion but not on a governmental level.
Ireland suddenly punching above its weight and no fear of trampling egos in London.
Has something changed in the geopolitical order?
They've been demanding this for decades.
Wasn’t the whole point of the ‘peace process’ that we left the past in the past?
The point being that *we* are meant to leave the past in the past. Irish Republicans have no intention of doing so.
Or perhaps we should have an inquiry.
After all, we’ve already admitted that the British government colluded in his murder.
Doesn’t sound like cricket to me.
But blowing up pubs is?
We are meant to be better than the terrorists.
Would you be ok with state sanctioned murder if Corbyn or future Home Secretary Chris Williamson had that power ?
I disapprove of murder full stop. But I accept that to move forward, justice has to be sacrificed. If it is to be sacrificed on one side, it should be sacrificed on all three sides.
The majority of British Muslims (52%) according to polling think gay people should be locked up (compared to only 5% of the general population) and a further 30% did not have an opinion on the matter. Four in ten thought wives should always obey their husbands.
It does make one wonder what drives the atheist Chinese government, the Hindu nationalist government in India (vs Pakistan), the Burmese and to a less extent Thai Buddhist nations and the Israeli Jewish state to not look too favourably on their Muslim minorities or neighbouring states. Let alone how Christians including Yazidis in the middle east may feel too.
Given this seems to be a global issue what can we do to promote greater tolerance?
If you believe that Muslims are on the whole backward primitives whose values are out of step with 'ours' why not just say that?
It's not anti-semitic so you won't get jumped on.
That is a rather simplistic view. I am quite willing to say Islam is institutionally archaic, misogynistic and homophobic, but then I would suggest the Catholic Church and many Evangelical churches too, as well as some orthodox Judaism.
That doesn't mean that Individuals are inevitably archaic, misogynistic and homophobic in those organisations. The nessecary thing in liberal democracies is to be tolerant and respectful to beliefs, religious or secular, of others whether one is in agreement or disagreement with them, and to treat people equally.
I think this is just about spot on. My only comment would be that, as an atheist, I think we give way too much latitude to religious groups and allow them to do things in the name of their religion that we would never allow for any other community grouping.
But I still feel that all religious groups exert an unwelcome and excessive amount of influence on our society and our institutions.
If it was not for religious groups half our food Banks and homeless hostels would be gone
No they wouldn't. People would still go out and help their neighbours. The idea that charity and helping your fellow man is in any way a reserve of the religious is simply wrong.
It's not the preserve of the religious, but a lot of it is done by the religious, which is why they have influence/
As are very many truly dreadful things, that don't need spelling out here.
Ireland suddenly punching above its weight and no fear of trampling egos in London.
Has something changed in the geopolitical order?
They've been demanding this for decades.
Wasn’t the whole point of the ‘peace process’ that we left the past in the past?
The point being that *we* are meant to leave the past in the past. Irish Republicans have no intention of doing so.
Or perhaps we should have an inquiry.
After all, we’ve already admitted that the British government colluded in his murder.
Doesn’t sound like cricket to me.
We've made no such admission. Nor did Ser Desmond da Silva reach that conclusion.
But, if we are to have such enquiries, then it would seem only fair that we should enquire into unsolved killings by all parties to the conflict.
You probably know more about this me.
However I would suggest this might be different.
- This is a case of alleged state sponsored (or colluded) killing
- The British government already promised to hold an enquiry in 2001, but reneged.
- David Cameron has apparently admitted there was collusion in his meeting with the Finacune family
- The Supreme Court has now found the government in breach of the ECHR convention on adequately investigating cases of real or alleged state sponsored killing.
I think Sean's issue was your allegation that we've admitted government collusion.
There was collusion but not on a governmental level.
Fine. Then let us learn about these rogue elements - acting after all in the name of HM Government - in an inquiry.
The majority of British Muslims (52%) according to polling think gay people should be locked up (compared to only 5% of the general population) and a further 30% did not have an opinion on the matter. Four in ten thought wives should always obey their husbands.
It does make one wonder what drives the atheist Chinese government, the Hindu nationalist government in India (vs Pakistan), the Burmese and to a less extent Thai Buddhist nations and the Israeli Jewish state to not look too favourably on their Muslim minorities or neighbouring states. Let alone how Christians including Yazidis in the middle east may feel too.
Given this seems to be a global issue what can we do to promote greater tolerance?
If you believe that Muslims are on the whole backward primitives whose values are out of step with 'ours' why not just say that?
It's not anti-semitic so you won't get jumped on.
That is a rather simplistic view. I am quite willing to say Islam is institutionally archaic, misogynistic and homophobic, but then I would suggest the Catholic Church and many Evangelical churches too, as well as some orthodox Judaism.
That doesn't mean that Individuals are inevitably archaic, misogynistic and homophobic in those organisations. The nessecary thing in liberal democracies is to be tolerant and respectful to beliefs, religious or secular, of others whether one is in agreement or disagreement with them, and to treat people equally.
I think this is just about spot on. My only comment would be that, as an atheist, I think we give way too much latitude to religious groups and allow them to do things in the name of their religion that we would never allow for any other community grouping.
But I still feel that all religious groups exert an unwelcome and excessive amount of influence on our society and our institutions.
The problem is when people want to apply their own beliefs to other people. Knock yourself out if you want to cut off bits of your own body or refrain from gay/premarital sex to keep your god happy. But don't presume to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't do, and everyone can be happy. The balance between individual freedoms and societal standards is set by democratic, secular parliaments rather than by churches nowadays - even in places like Ireland - albeit with some lingering reference back to the old days. If people want to listen to their preferred flavour of bloke in a dress for additional guidance, great. But I won't be, and it should never trump the secular.
As I said this is why relenting now on the referendum was not tactically smart from Corbyn. He hasn't made any friends, just more enemies. The people that don't like him will continue not to like him and it's not going to stop MPs leaving because his insincerity is barely concealed, the trust simply isn't there. Besides those MPs are people he doesn't want in the party anyway.
That is a rather simplistic view. I am quite willing to say Islam is institutionally archaic, misogynistic and homophobic, but then I would suggest the Catholic Church and many Evangelical churches too, as well as some orthodox Judaism.
That doesn't mean that Individuals are inevitably archaic, misogynistic and homophobic in those organisations. The nessecary thing in liberal democracies is to be tolerant and respectful to beliefs, religious or secular, of others whether one is in agreement or disagreement with them, and to treat people equally.
Absolutely. You can take a dim view of an ideology or a religion without succumbing to prejudiced assumption about the personality and beliefs and character of individuals.
Islam v Muslims. Zionism v Jews. RC v Catholics. Etc.
It is in the lexicon of the average Corbyn supporter, particularly the likes of "Jezziah". Anyone criticises Mr. Thicky and they are "smearing" him. It is pathetic.
Ireland suddenly punching above its weight and no fear of trampling egos in London.
Has something changed in the geopolitical order?
They've been demanding this for decades.
Wasn’t the whole point of the ‘peace process’ that we left the past in the past?
The point being that *we* are meant to leave the past in the past. Irish Republicans have no intention of doing so.
Or perhaps we should have an inquiry.
After all, we’ve already admitted that the British government colluded in his murder.
Doesn’t sound like cricket to me.
We've made no such admission. Nor did Ser Desmond da Silva reach that conclusion.
But, if we are to have such enquiries, then it would seem only fair that we should enquire into unsolved killings by all parties to the conflict.
You probably know more about this me.
However I would suggest this might be different.
- This is a case of alleged state sponsored (or colluded) killing
- The British government already promised to hold an enquiry in 2001, but reneged.
- David Cameron has apparently admitted there was collusion in his meeting with the Finacune family
- The Supreme Court has now found the government in breach of the ECHR convention on adequately investigating cases of real or alleged state sponsored killing.
OTOH the Supreme Court has ruled against recommending a public enquiry. The Finucane family could have co-operated with the enquiry that was carried out by Sir Desmond Da Silva, but chose not to.
They blame Douglas Hogg for Finucane's murder, and that is the only finding that will satisfy them.
The majority of British Muslims (52%) according to polling think gay people should be locked up (compared to only 5% of the general population) and a further 30% did not have an opinion on the matter. Four in ten thought wives should always obey their husbands.
It does make one wonder what drives the atheist Chinese government, the Hindu nationalist government in India (vs Pakistan), the Burmese and to a less extent Thai Buddhist nations and the Israeli Jewish state to not look too favourably on their Muslim minorities or neighbouring states. Let alone how Christians including Yazidis in the middle east may feel too.
Given this seems to be a global issue what can we do to promote greater tolerance?
If you believe that Muslims are on the whole backward primitives whose values are out of step with 'ours' why not just say that?
It's not anti-semitic so you won't get jumped on.
That is a rather simplistic view. I am quite willing to say Islam is institutionally archaic, misogynistic and homophobic, but then I would suggest the Catholic Church and many Evangelical churches too, as well as some orthodox Judaism.
That doesn't mean that Individuals are inevitably archaic, misogynistic and homophobic in those organisations. The nessecary thing in liberal democracies is to be tolerant and respectful to beliefs, religious or secular, of others whether one is in agreement or disagreement with them, and to treat people equally.
I think this is just about spot on. My only comment would be that, as an atheist, I think we give way too much latitude to religious groups and allow them to do things in the name of their religion that we would never allow for any other community grouping.
But I still feel that all religious groups exert an unwelcome and excessive amount of influence on our society and our institutions.
If it was not for religious groups half our food Banks and homeless hostels would be gone
No they wouldn't. People would still go out and help their neighbours. The idea that charity and helping your fellow man is in any way a reserve of the religious is simply wrong.
Clearly altruism and charity is not solely motivated by religion, but equally clearly all major religions actively support, encourage, finance and staff charitable activities.
So do the Lions Club, but they don't have 25 seats in parliament off the back of it.
Ireland suddenly punching above its weight and no fear of trampling egos in London.
Has something changed in the geopolitical order?
They've been demanding this for decades.
Wasn’t the whole point of the ‘peace process’ that we left the past in the past?
The point being that *we* are meant to leave the past in the past. Irish Republicans have no intention of doing so.
Or perhaps we should have an inquiry.
After all, we’ve already admitted that the British government colluded in his murder.
Doesn’t sound like cricket to me.
But blowing up pubs is?
We are meant to be better than the terrorists.
Would you be ok with state sanctioned murder if Corbyn or future Home Secretary Chris Williamson had that power ?
I disapprove of murder full stop. But I accept that to move forward, justice has to be sacrificed. If it is to be sacrificed on one side, it should be sacrificed on all three sides.
We've resumed the inquests into the Birmingham pub bombings.
Ireland suddenly punching above its weight and no fear of trampling egos in London.
Has something changed in the geopolitical order?
They've been demanding this for decades.
Wasn’t the whole point of the ‘peace process’ that we left the past in the past?
The point being that *we* are meant to leave the past in the past. Irish Republicans have no intention of doing so.
Or perhaps we should have an inquiry.
After all, we’ve already admitted that the British government colluded in his murder.
Doesn’t sound like cricket to me.
But blowing up pubs is?
We are meant to be better than the terrorists.
Would you be ok with state sanctioned murder if Corbyn or future Home Secretary Chris Williamson had that power ?
I disapprove of murder full stop. But I accept that to move forward, justice has to be sacrificed. If it is to be sacrificed on one side, it should be sacrificed on all three sides.
We've resumed the inquests into the Birmingham pub bombings.
Will the victims' families get justice? Will there be prosecutions?
Should be the biggest political story of the day, but a bunch of twats in the Labour Party are letting the government off the hook by creating a diversion.
Ireland suddenly punching above its weight and no fear of trampling egos in London.
Has something changed in the geopolitical order?
They've been demanding this for decades.
Wasn’t the whole point of the ‘peace process’ that we left the past in the past?
The point being that *we* are meant to leave the past in the past. Irish Republicans have no intention of doing so.
Or perhaps we should have an inquiry.
After all, we’ve already admitted that the British government colluded in his murder.
Doesn’t sound like cricket to me.
We've made no such admission. Nor did Ser Desmond da Silva reach that conclusion.
But, if we are to have such enquiries, then it would seem only fair that we should enquire into unsolved killings by all parties to the conflict.
You probably know more about this me.
However I would suggest this might be different.
- This is a case of alleged state sponsored (or colluded) killing
- The British government already promised to hold an enquiry in 2001, but reneged.
- David Cameron has apparently admitted there was collusion in his meeting with the Finacune family
- The Supreme Court has now found the government in breach of the ECHR convention on adequately investigating cases of real or alleged state sponsored killing.
OTOH the Supreme Court has ruled against recommending a public enquiry. The Finucane family could have co-operated with the enquiry that was carried out by Sir Desmond Da Silva, but chose not to.
They blame Douglas Hogg for Finucane's murder, and that is the only finding that will satisfy them.
I haven't seen the Court report yet, but it looks as if the Supreme Court did in fact rule against the Finucanes.
They showed the committee meeting on the TV at lunchtime. It was hilarious. In fairness to Sajid Javid he dealt with it well and with humour. Firing the PPS though looks silly. What is the reason. All I can think of is for embarrassing May, but it just highlights it more. Up until then it was just an amusing cockup that ended well.
"So do the Lions Club, but they don't have 25 seats in parliament off the back of it."
I don't think the Sally Army have any seats. If you mean organised religion, the last time I went to a Lions or Roundtable event (I'm not a member), they weren't all atheists.
Absolutely. You can take a dim view of an ideology or a religion without succumbing to prejudiced assumption about the personality and beliefs and character of individuals.
Islam v Muslims. Zionism v Jews. RC v Catholics. Etc.
I'm not sure that quite works. Muslims and Catholics are by definition members of the Islamic Religion and the Roman Catholic church. Jews are not by definition Zionists (though many are; this is not a controversial fact). The failure to understand that Jews are neither necessarily Zionists, nor responsible for the actions of the Israeli state, is the root of most left wing antisemitism.
The majority of British Muslims (52%) according to polling think gay people should be locked up (compared to only 5% of the general population) and a further 30% did not have an opinion on the matter. Four in ten thought wives should always obey their husbands.
It does make one wonder what drives the atheist Chinese government, the Hindu nationalist government in India (vs Pakistan), the Burmese and to a less extent Thai Buddhist nations and the Israeli Jewish state to not look too favourably on their Muslim minorities or neighbouring states. Let alone how Christians including Yazidis in the middle east may feel too.
Given this seems to be a global issue what can we do to promote greater tolerance?
If you believe that Muslims are on the whole backward primitives whose values are out of step with 'ours' why not just say that?
It's not anti-semitic so you won't get jumped on.
That is a rather simplistic view. I am quite willing to say Islam is institutionally archaic, misogynistic and homophobic, but then I would suggest the Catholic Church and many Evangelical churches too, as well as some orthodox Judaism.
That doesn't mean that Individuals are inevitably
I think this is just about spot on. My only comment would be that, as an atheist, I think we give way too much latitude to religious groups and allow them to do things in the name of their religion that we would never allow for any other community grouping.
But I still feel that all religious groups exert an unwelcome and excessive amount of influence on our society and our institutions.
The problem is when people want to apply their own beliefs to other people. Knock yourself out if you want to cut off bits of your own body or refrain from gay/premarital sex to keep your god happy. But don't presume to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't do, and everyone can be happy. The balance between individual freedoms and societal standards is set by democratic, secular parliaments rather than by churches nowadays - even in places like Ireland - albeit with some lingering reference back to the old days. If people want to listen to their preferred flavour of bloke in a dress for additional guidance, great. But I won't be, and it should never trump the secular.
Ironically a problematic issue on the Isle of Harris Tweed!
As I said this is why relenting now on the referendum was not tactically smart from Corbyn. He hasn't made any friends, just more enemies. The people that don't like him will continue not to like him and it's not going to stop MPs leaving because his insincerity is barely concealed, the trust simply isn't there. Besides those MPs are people he doesn't want in the party anyway.
Labour managed to turn the 2017 GE away from May's desired focus on Brexit by insisting that Labour wasn't going to rock the Brexit vote, just the terms of the negotiation. Labour's best electoral strategy since was always to continue to sit on the fence and to hope that May got just as much share of the blame from Leavers when Brexit failed to happen. Committing unequivocally to Remain isn't really going to get him much new support but it does put a nail in the coffin of hopes that the working class Leave vote might in small part return to Labour.
The majority of British Muslims (52%) according to polling think gay people should be locked up (compared to only 5% of the general population) and a further 30% did not have an opinion on the matter. Four in ten thought wives should always obey their husbands.
It does make one wonder what drives the atheist Chinese government, the Hindu nationalist government in India (vs Pakistan), the Burmese and to a less extent Thai Buddhist nations and the Israeli Jewish state to not look too favourably on their Muslim minorities or neighbouring states. Let alone how Christians including Yazidis in the middle east may feel too.
Given this seems to be a global issue what can we do to promote greater tolerance?
If you believe that Muslims are on the whole backward primitives whose values are out of step with 'ours' why not just say that?
It's not anti-semitic so you won't get jumped on.
That is a rather simplistic view. I am quite willing to say Islam is institutionally archaic, misogynistic and homophobic, but then I would suggest the Catholic Church and many Evangelical churches too, as well as some orthodox Judaism.
That doesn't mean that Individuals are inevitably
I think this is just about spot on. My only comment would be that, as an atheist, I think we give way too much latitude to religious groups and allow them to do things in the name of their religion that we would never allow for any other community grouping.
But I still feel that all religious groups exert an unwelcome and excessive amount of influence on our society and our institutions.
The problem is when people want to apply their own beliefs to other people. Knock yourself out if you want to cut off bits of your own body or refrain from gay/premarital sex to keep your god happy. But don't presume to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't do, and everyone can be happy. The balance between individual freedoms and societal standards is set by democratic, secular parliaments rather than by churches nowadays - even in places like Ireland - albeit with some lingering reference back to the old days. If people want to listen to their preferred flavour of bloke in a dress for additional guidance, great. But I won't be, and it should never trump the secular.
Ironically a problematic issue on the Isle of Harris Tweed!
All politicians, religious and non-religious, want to apply their beliefs to others. It's why they are politicians.
Comments
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1100744029778706432
I don't bother arguing with anti-religious people. Some do like black and white, and seem to be experts on what I think. Pride is one of the great sins and we all still indulge in it. I'm Catholic but I'd be very happy with married priests and priestesses. Even a female Pope.
There's always a desire for perfection, but we aren't perfect. If we were, we wouldn't need help. This misplaced pride can often develop into arrogance. Atheists as well as theists. I'm not so arrogant that I can envisage science ever explaining everything. We have a better understanding than we used to have about 5% of the content of this universe, but it's baby steps and still subject to some ratification.
As for why, rather than how, you pays your money and ...
Perhaps we should just revoke.
Foot was a soviet spy in the same way that Dylan lived in Crouch End.
and of course he's now 'under investigation' so it would be wrong of Corbyn to comment on it....
1) The EU doesn't have to accept her dates, why would they let the timebomb she's setting blow up in their elections? If they tell her she'll need a shorter or longer extension she'll have to suck it up
2) Remainers know she doesn't have to do No Deal, she can revoke
3) The Tories get the blame for No Deal, Lab and TIG potentially have political upside
Probably won't look such a wizard wheeze when they lose 10 more MPs as a result....
If the extension is for only 3 months, it really does become May's Deal / No Deal / Revoke.
The Labour Party has anti semites and their response is the same with added viciousness. When will they come into the 21st century?
That rather got to me, that did.
It's all rather reminiscent of the days before the Euro when boom and bust was in full swing.
My feeling is that it is pretty much all down to currency rather than Brexit.
https://twitter.com/NickGriffinBU/status/1032688288480591872
Have you seen what he said in context? You're repeating a media misrepresentation of the event, whether deliberate or not.
Leave now.
Stop fretting, the Israelis have bought their own party now.
Why don't you shut it. Nearly all the false allegations of AS are made by yourself to cover up for the crimes against humanity committed by the Israeli regime. #PalestineLives
How are you still a thing? Go away.
He's twice the MP you'll ever be. Deep down you know it.
Yawn . . . another day another witch hunter general trying to destroy Labour. When are you joining the ‘Centrists’? The sooner the better as far as I’m concerned.
And on and on....
I absolutely get that the elections/lack thereof is a big deal which needs some pointy heads working on it (my guess is we'd be expected to go without until a permanent solution was reached one way or the other; and some sort of treaty would be needed to make that happen).
But if the EU was in the mood for "erm.. nah, too difficult, can't be arsed, let's crash it", I suspect they'd be playing that card on March 29th rather than faffing around any longer.
The fun begins once Muekker reports no collusion and trump decslsses the FISA details
After all, we’ve already admitted that the British government colluded in his murder.
Doesn’t sound like cricket to me.
Point by point:
1) As you mention, this doesn't target Jews specifically; banning medically unnecessary circumcisions of children would impact some aspect of all the Abrahamic faiths. Same with end of halal / kosher meat killing.
2) Faith schools of all stripes are pretty bad. But again, if Lab enacted strict policies against faith schools (which I haven't seen proposed but would love to see), it wouldn't be targeting Jews specifically.
3) Is Labour creating this air of fear or is the press? Yes, the upper echelons of the Lab party are doing the politics of this super badly, but as I stated, it is a perception issue not a more AS people are lab than elsewhere issue. The stats suggest roughly 20-25% of the UK hold AS tropes as true, and that most parties harbour a roughly equal percentage of people who believe that.
4) Look, we can't say "conflating Israel and Jewish people is AS" and then use a position on Israel as an example of Labour being AS. The left feel that the creation of Israel by colonial powers post war, and the displacement of the Palestinian people through illegal means is bad. The left also feel this needs to be talked about because it is mostly funded by the US. Same reason the left complain a lot about the Saudis (although the historic reasons of support are obvs different)
5) Does Lab have an issue with AS? Yes. Does it have an unique issue with AS? I would say no. What it does have is unique scrutiny around AS specifically, and really bad political reactions to that scrutiny.
But, if we are to have such enquiries, then it would seem only fair that we should enquire into unsolved killings by all parties to the conflict.
Would you be ok with state sanctioned murder if Corbyn or future Home Secretary Chris Williamson had that power ?
due process and all that...
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1100751540447518720
However I would suggest this might be different.
- This is a case of alleged state sponsored (or colluded) killing
- The British government already promised to hold an enquiry in 2001, but reneged.
- David Cameron has apparently admitted there was collusion in his meeting with the Finacune family
- The Supreme Court has now found the government in breach of the ECHR convention on adequately investigating cases of real or alleged state sponsored killing.
"The thing is atheists don't claim to be perfect,"
I must be meeting a different kind of atheist up this way. Still I hardly meet any vegans, so I can't complain, I suppose.
There was collusion but not on a governmental level.
Islam v Muslims.
Zionism v Jews.
RC v Catholics.
Etc.
They blame Douglas Hogg for Finucane's murder, and that is the only finding that will satisfy them.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/27/confusion-reigns-over-brexit-amendment-as-tory-mp-alberto-costa-sacked
In the UK, they provide over 3,000 places every night in 82 lifehouses, along with many other projects.
I remember buying War Cry years ago in local pubs, and it was surprising how many drinkers contributed.
Ghastly character, Griffin. How come he hasn't been banned from Twitter like Tommy?
Sunny days are weird.
I love urban myths. Unless of course (like the one about Brussels tampering with our bananas) they end up driving stupid political decisions.
"So do the Lions Club, but they don't have 25 seats in parliament off the back of it."
I don't think the Sally Army have any seats. If you mean organised religion, the last time I went to a Lions or Roundtable event (I'm not a member), they weren't all atheists.
https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1100734469676380161
Edit: found a slightly less sweary version!