When you start talking about ethnicity in respect of Russia and Ukraine it shows that you've wholly bought into the way the Kremlin wants you to see it.
Russia is a multinational state, and the fact that another place might have a majority 'ethnically Russian' population does not mean that it belongs to the Russian state. The same logic could be used to say that Australia is British.
Excellent analogy ... apart from, I guess, Russia adjoins the Crimea, and Australia is the other end of the world from Britain.
The Crimea was resettled with 'ethnic Russians' during the war because Stalin didn't trust the Tartar in habitants.
I have Russian friends (not as you sourly put it, Putin's idiots) who are frightened to travel to the US because of the prevailing Russo-phobia that bigoted people have caused.
They are fucking idiots if not Putin's then as they have completely swallowed Putin's propaganda about how everywhere is a dysfunctional shit hole except the Rodina. Russian language media relentlessly exaggerates and sometimes fabricates the dangers faced by Russians abroad. This campaign is designed to stop Russians having any ideas about leaving the failing and decaying chirocracy and thus worsening its already appalling demographics.
They are actually distinguished University professors, but I'll pass on your observation that they're fucking idiots to them.
Like, who is best placed to judge whether Russians feel uncomfortable travelling in the neo-McCarthyist US ?
Russians or ... err, Dura Ace
Hundreds of thousands of Russians visit the US every year. What exactly are these "distinguished University professors" afraid of? What do they think is going to happen?
Maybe meeting some uncaring & unforgiving bastard who blames them for Trump.
Are you suggesting the Americans are not happy about Trump?
I am suggesting that many Americans, instead of blaming themselves for Trump, are happy to blame others, in particular Russians. That is scapegoating, with an unpleasant racist tinge.
I am suggesting people need to take responsibility for their own actions, and their own decisions, their own elections and their own electorate.
I am suggesting that Americans are responsible for electing Trump.
As regards Brexit, it was a decision of the British people. If it was the wrong decision, we should look to ourselves & our politicians & our people and the society we created for the blame.
When you start talking about ethnicity in respect of Russia and Ukraine it shows that you've wholly bought into the way the Kremlin wants you to see it.
Russia is a multinational state, and the fact that another place might have a majority 'ethnically Russian' population does not mean that it belongs to the Russian state. The same logic could be used to say that Australia is British.
... Russia adjoins the Crimea ...
Ooh, that's debatable. If you'd said "adjacent to"...
This is an excellent piece @Cyclefree. I am confident that my party is not institutionally Islamophobic but we must not be complacent; the cases we have heard about recently do make the party a less welcoming place. I have shared it with my colleagues.
Good morning everyone. Late start, due to gym session this morning, where, anecdote alert, no less than three people, only one of whom am I on more than nodding terms, remarked to me that the country was in a mess, and how we should never have tried to leave the EU. Especially interestingly, the one who m I know slightly, who is my age, remarked that her daughter.... apparently in her 50's...... wanted to go back to how it was before..... everything was all right then. A time, of course, which she doesn't remember. My acquaintance is amazed, and somewhat distressed, that her daughter takes that view.
Although I don't doubt that feeling is on the rise, it's probably (a) a strengthening of resolve among remainers, and (b) where former Leavers repent, it's a rather resentful "the bastards won't let us out". If we stay in those circumstances, we'd be no better off. Remaining long-term would need an actual realisation that we *are* better off in. And I suspect that needs a period outside to achieve. (That's not to say we *would* rejoin)
I have Russian friends (not as you sourly put it, Putin's idiots) who are frightened to travel to the US because of the prevailing Russo-phobia that bigoted people have caused.
They are fucking idiots if not Putin's then as they have completely swallowed Putin's propaganda about how everywhere is a dysfunctional shit hole except the Rodina. Russian language media relentlessly exaggerates and sometimes fabricates the dangers faced by Russians abroad. This campaign is designed to stop Russians having any ideas about leaving the failing and decaying chirocracy and thus worsening its already appalling demographics.
They are actually distinguished University professors, but I'll pass on your observation that they're fucking idiots to them.
Like, who is best placed to judge whether Russians feel uncomfortable travelling in the neo-McCarthyist US ?
Russians or ... err, Dura Ace
Hundreds of thousands of Russians visit the US every year. What exactly are these "distinguished University professors" afraid of? What do they think is going to happen?
Maybe meeting some uncaring & unforgiving bastard who blames them for Trump.
Are you suggesting the Americans are not happy about Trump?
I am suggesting that many Americans, instead of blaming themselves for Trump, are happy to blame others, in particular Russians. That is scapegoating, with an unpleasant racist tinge.
I am suggesting people need to take responsibility for their own actions, and their own decisions, their own elections and their own electorate.
I am suggesting that Americans are responsible for electing Trump.
As regards Brexit, it was a decision of the British people. If it was the wrong decision, we should look to ourselves & our politicians & our people and the society we created for the blame.
That can all be true, and at the same time it can be true that Russia has invested significant resources in attempting to corrupt the political processes in other countries including our own.
It's up to Russia to take responsibility for its own actions, and the consequences of those actions.
"Brexit's my fault: How the word I invented could be an epitaph for the nation's decline Peter Wilding writes that the word he invented, Brexit, could "sadly be an epitaph for a nation's decline and possible fall"."
Labour anti-Semitism has become institutionalised because those who run Labour are anti-Semitic. It has been a top down exercise, which has attracted anti-Semites to the party. The real lesson that Labour can teach is do not put racists in charge.
I don't think Mrs May is a racist. But she is undoubtedly a xenophobe. Johnson gives every impression of being a racist. Many other Tories seem to believe the way to get on is to pander to the worst instincts of their party's right-wing members.
It's all a bloody mess.
Why is Theresa May a xenophobe?
On southern -
Someone posting on racism of others living in the whitish part of the country,experience of poor immigration nil.
You couldn't make it up.
I am definitely not making light of your experiences, which I think are vile and disgusting and I am sorry that you and your family have had to endure them.
But what on earth does that second sentence mean?
Life eperiences Topping.
I live in the place I was born and grew up and I tried to be a good neighbour and friend to the change in my area.
But life experiences have left me mentally scarred and I can't help that.
The elections are at the end of May but the new Parliament doesn't sit until 2nd July. So any delay with a definite end date earlier than 2nd July would be okay I would assume. Anything after that would mean the UK taking part in the elections... again I assume.
Thanks. I'm guessing plans are being made by local authorities to prepare for holding the elections in case there is a delay beyond that time.
Actually I would be surprised if they are yet. Even at the planning stage that would involve committing money they probably haven't budgeted. And with the local elections currently scheduled for 2nd May it may well cause a lot of problems for them.
The 2014 timetable, for an EU election on the equivalent weekend, is here:
Of course, you'd need some lead time even up to the first dates on there, but it's probably doable - certainly if we got dispensation to poll a month later or something.
My guess is that the government won't have let any formal guidance go out to LAs. But if I was a clued-up returning officer, I might have picked up the phone to the Electoral Commission to chew the cud over what might happen in various scenarios.
Very useful doc, thanks for posting.
(snip a load of sensible stuff to keep Vanilla happy)
So, if the Treaty isn't ratified by the EU Parliament before it is dissolved, we must definitely take part in the EU elections.
I think your conclusions are reasonable. But I also suspect there will be much unpicking required in those circumstances (eg over the make up of the new parliament) which will need more than a handshake over vol-au-vents.. so it's probably all up for grabs.
AIUI the EU have two proposals, one for the UK being a member and one for the UK having left. My reading is that before the Parliament is dissolved, there will have to be an absolute commitment to one path or the other, there can't be any uncertainty during the election process.
When you start talking about ethnicity in respect of Russia and Ukraine it shows that you've wholly bought into the way the Kremlin wants you to see it.
Russia is a multinational state, and the fact that another place might have a majority 'ethnically Russian' population does not mean that it belongs to the Russian state. The same logic could be used to say that Australia is British.
Excellent analogy ... apart from, I guess, Russia adjoins the Crimea, and Australia is the other end of the world from Britain.
The Crimea was resettled with 'ethnic Russians' during the war because Stalin didn't trust the Tartar in habitants.
I understand, but the present population of the Crimea is overwhelming Russian.
I have Russian friends (not as you sourly put it, Putin's idiots) who are frightened to travel to the US because of the prevailing Russo-phobia that bigoted people have caused.
They are fucking idiots if not Putin's then as they have completely swallowed Putin's propaganda about how everywhere is a dysfunctional shit hole except the Rodina. Russian language media relentlessly exaggerates and sometimes fabricates the dangers faced by Russians abroad. This campaign is designed to stop Russians having any ideas about leaving the failing and decaying chirocracy and thus worsening its already appalling demographics.
They are actually distinguished University professors, but I'll pass on your observation that they're fucking idiots to them.
Like, who is best placed to judge whether Russians feel uncomfortable travelling in the neo-McCarthyist US ?
Russians or ... err, Dura Ace
Hundreds of thousands of Russians visit the US every year. What exactly are these "distinguished University professors" afraid of? What do they think is going to happen?
Maybe meeting some uncaring & unforgiving bastard who blames them for Trump.
Are you suggesting the Americans are not happy about Trump?
I am suggesting that many Americans, instead of blaming themselves for Trump, are happy to blame others, in particular Russians. That is scapegoating, with an unpleasant racist tinge.
I am suggesting people need to take responsibility for their own actions, and their own decisions, their own elections and their own electorate.
I am suggesting that Americans are responsible for electing Trump.
As regards Brexit, it was a decision of the British people. If it was the wrong decision, we should look to ourselves & our politicians & our people and the society we created for the blame.
That can all be true, and at the same time it can be true that Russia has invested significant resources in attempting to corrupt the political processes in other countries including our own.
It's up to Russia to take responsibility for its own actions, and the consequences of those actions.
Let the British take responsibility for themselves and their own "corruptions" before they look to others for blame.
Not like we'll see any actual reporting of Article 13 on the news...
You'll see nothing about it in the media - it's their legislation, bought and paid for.
In an ideal world an organisation like the BBC should pick this up and run with it, but nowadays they seem too worried about an anti-BBC backlash from other media to go near it.
This is the sort of crap that over time makes people vote to leave the EU.
Labour anti-Semitism has become institutionalised because those who run Labour are anti-Semitic. It has been a top down exercise, which has attracted anti-Semites to the party. The real lesson that Labour can teach is do not put racists in charge.
I don't think Mrs May is a racist. But she is undoubtedly a xenophobe. Johnson gives every impression of being a racist. Many other Tories seem to believe the way to get on is to pander to the worst instincts of their party's right-wing members.
It's all a bloody mess.
Why is Theresa May a xenophobe?
On southern -
Someone posting on racism of others living in the whitish part of the country,experience of poor immigration nil.
You couldn't make it up.
I am definitely not making light of your experiences, which I think are vile and disgusting and I am sorry that you and your family have had to endure them.
But what on earth does that second sentence mean?
Life eperiences Topping.
I live in the place I was born and grew up and I tried to be a good neighbour and friend to the change in my area.
But life experiences have left me mentally scarred and I can't help that.
Not like we'll see any actual reporting of Article 13 on the news...
It is quite incredible the lack of coverage in the MSM. This is a potentially a huge huge deal and the EU are making a total dogs dinner of it in their attempt to screw Google, Amazon etc they are currently just going to totally screw over a load of small time content creators and potentially censor individuals.
There is another worrying trend starting to emerge. Because Google etc are putting in place much stricter measures to ensure they have their arses covered, companies are now using this to try and shut down stuff they don't like e.g. Vox did it over their shit show of a PC build that was widely mocked by tech YouTubers and apparently Sky are becoming very aggressive at reporting videos to YouTube, they don't like the informational content of.
Furthermore, even removing videos that have complaints about can still mean you have strikes against you...and if you want to challenge this you have to fight the company, not YouTube, and the company doesn't have to respond.
Now obviously if it is media company vs media company, the lawyers can get involved...if it is some bloke in his basement, they can't afford to hire lawyers to force somebody like Sky to listen to the fact they might have had a false complaint against them.
When you start talking about ethnicity in respect of Russia and Ukraine it shows that you've wholly bought into the way the Kremlin wants you to see it.
Russia is a multinational state, and the fact that another place might have a majority 'ethnically Russian' population does not mean that it belongs to the Russian state. The same logic could be used to say that Australia is British.
Excellent analogy ... apart from, I guess, Russia adjoins the Crimea, and Australia is the other end of the world from Britain.
The Crimea was resettled with 'ethnic Russians' during the war because Stalin didn't trust the Tartar in habitants.
I understand, but the present population of the Crimea is overwhelming Russian.
What about the present population of Chechnya, Ingushetia or Dagestan? What about the present population of Tatarstan? What about the present population of Chuvashia? What about the present population of Tuva?
Is your rule: majority Russian = Russian, majority non-Russian = also Russian?
Based on your logic we should just call the UK England, as is still common in parts of the world.
Nah. You and your fellow Leaver travellers misunderstood what the EU was supposed to be about, or the UK's relation to it. It was always a club which made things better for the UK in very many respects. Did it put a brand spanking new Range Rover Evoque on every driveway? No. Did it want to move to ever closer union? Yes but the UK got an opt out of that bit. It was an on balance better thing to be a part of than not. And now that we are going to leave we will on balance be worse off than we would have been. So there was no crash bang wallop slam dunk for the Remain campaign - you would have been pushed to find anyone who didn't acknowledge the EU's failings. But on the whole we did very well out of our membership.
Which leaves you with sovereignty article which, as #FBPE Anna Soubry David Davis correctly identified, we always were.
We were only sovereign in the theoretical sense that we could choose to leave. Which we did.
Under the backstop which you are so 100% adamant we must sign and that there is no alternative we lose even that shred of theoretical sovereignty. We won't be able to choose to leave anymore.
We are working with a partner together to make the backstop redundant. We would be signing of our own free, sovereign will. That's how the world works these days. North Korea aside.
Signing freely is how the world works, but it also works by signing agreements freely that future generations or Parliaments can then revoke freely.
We can unilaterally exit the EU. We can unilaterally exit NATO. We can unilaterally exit the WTO. We can even unilaterally exit the United Nations.
We can't unilaterally exit the backstop. That is not how the world works these days.
I agree with you. Instead of perpetual backstop, the EU should poison-pill every agreement it makes with the UK: "this agreement is void should the UK leave the backstop". A massive guillotine. It comes to the same thing as perpetual backstop but gets rid of the hangup.
YES! THIS!
100% agreed.
I would approve the backstop today if that was the situation.
When you start talking about ethnicity in respect of Russia and Ukraine it shows that you've wholly bought into the way the Kremlin wants you to see it.
Russia is a multinational state, and the fact that another place might have a majority 'ethnically Russian' population does not mean that it belongs to the Russian state. The same logic could be used to say that Australia is British.
Excellent analogy ... apart from, I guess, Russia adjoins the Crimea, and Australia is the other end of the world from Britain.
Canada adjoins the United States. Is it therefore naturally part of the United States?
I have Russian friends (not as you sourly put it, Putin's idiots) who are frightened to travel to the US because of the prevailing Russo-phobia that bigoted people have caused.
They are fucking idiots if not Putin's then as they have completely swallowed Putin's propaganda about how everywhere is a dysfunctional shit hole except the Rodina. Russian language media relentlessly exaggerates and sometimes fabricates the dangers faced by Russians abroad. This campaign is designed to stop Russians having any ideas about leaving the failing and decaying chirocracy and thus worsening its already appalling demographics.
They are actually distinguished University professors, but I'll pass on your observation that they're fucking idiots to them.
Like, who is best placed to judge whether Russians feel uncomfortable travelling in the neo-McCarthyist US ?
Russians or ... err, Dura Ace
Hundreds of thousands of Russians visit the US every year. What exactly are these "distinguished University professors" afraid of? What do they think is going to happen?
Maybe meeting some uncaring & unforgiving bastard who blames them for Trump.
Are you suggesting the Americans are not happy about Trump?
Some mutterings that Muller will pass on his report this weekend..
Labour anti-Semitism has become institutionalised because those who run Labour are anti-Semitic. It has been a top down exercise, which has attracted anti-Semites to the party. The real lesson that Labour can teach is do not put racists in charge.
I don't think Mrs May is a racist. But she is undoubtedly a xenophobe. Johnson gives every impression of being a racist. Many other Tories seem to believe the way to get on is to pander to the worst instincts of their party's right-wing members.
It's all a bloody mess.
Why is Theresa May a xenophobe?
On southern -
Someone posting on racism of others living in the whitish part of the country,experience of poor immigration nil.
You couldn't make it up.
I am definitely not making light of your experiences, which I think are vile and disgusting and I am sorry that you and your family have had to endure them.
But what on earth does that second sentence mean?
Life eperiences Topping.
I live in the place I was born and grew up and I tried to be a good neighbour and friend to the change in my area.
But life experiences have left me mentally scarred and I can't help that.
You seem to spend 90% of your time on here slagging off your home town.
Not like we'll see any actual reporting of Article 13 on the news...
You'll see nothing about it in the media - it's their legislation, bought and paid for.
In an ideal world an organisation like the BBC should pick this up and run with it, but nowadays they seem too worried about an anti-BBC backlash from other media to go near it.
This is the sort of crap that over time makes people vote to leave the EU.
On a related note, I didn't realize a massive problem the BBC have with BritBox. Apparently, they can only put content they have made themselves on there, so the likes of Bodyguard won't be part of it.
Now, in theory they perhaps can start to buy rights to shows, both the "live screening" and then the future digital distribution, but if you are a third party production company Netflix and Amazon have very deep pockets.
I don't see how the BBC can compete with that given their current model.
Not like we'll see any actual reporting of Article 13 on the news...
It is quite incredible the lack of coverage in the MSM. This is a potentially a huge huge deal and the EU are making a total dogs dinner of it in their attempt to screw Google, Amazon etc they are currently just going to totally screw over a load of small time content creators and potentially censor individuals.
There is another worrying trend starting to emerge. Because Google etc are putting in place much stricter measures to ensure they have their arses covered, companies are now using this to try and shut down stuff they don't like e.g. Vox did it over their shit show of a PC build that was widely mocked by tech YouTubers and apparently Sky are becoming very aggressive at reporting videos to YouTube, they don't like the informational content of.
Furthermore, even removing videos that have complaints about can still mean you have strikes against you...and if you want to challenge this you have to fight the company, not YouTube, and the company doesn't have to respond.
Now obviously if it is media company vs media company, the lawyers can get involved...if it is some bloke in his basement, they can't afford to hire lawyers to force somebody like Sky to listen to the fact they might have had a false complaint against them.
The lack of reporting is not quite incredible, it's entirely by design and the result of huge rows between European media companies and American tech companies.
Expect the same sort of EU legislation directed specifically against British companies after we leave the EU.
Not like we'll see any actual reporting of Article 13 on the news...
You'll see nothing about it in the media - it's their legislation, bought and paid for.
In an ideal world an organisation like the BBC should pick this up and run with it, but nowadays they seem too worried about an anti-BBC backlash from other media to go near it.
This is the sort of crap that over time makes people vote to leave the EU.
On a related note, I didn't realize a massive problem the BBC have with BritBox. Apparently, they can only put content they have made themselves on there, so the likes of Bodyguard won't be part of it.
Now, in theory they perhaps can start to buy rights to shows, both the "live screening" and then the future digital distribution, but if you are a third party production company Netflix and Amazon have very deep pockets.
I don't see how the BBC can compete with that given their current model.
Even with its own productions, there are a lot of historical issues (repeat fees) etc which need renegotiating on older stuff of its own. Even since the advent of iPlayer, a lot of those fees only cover the 30-day catch up.
However, with a commercial archive service, at least it's a revenue-generating proposition and you can judge how to spend the money it raises. With demands to put the whole archive on iPlayer for free ("we already paid for that"), you're fighting a losing battle with the cost required.
When you start talking about ethnicity in respect of Russia and Ukraine it shows that you've wholly bought into the way the Kremlin wants you to see it.
Russia is a multinational state, and the fact that another place might have a majority 'ethnically Russian' population does not mean that it belongs to the Russian state. The same logic could be used to say that Australia is British.
Excellent analogy ... apart from, I guess, Russia adjoins the Crimea, and Australia is the other end of the world from Britain.
Canada adjoins the United States. Is it therefore naturally part of the United States?
Re Crimea the issue is one of self-determination. There's not much doubt that most of the inhabitants view themselves as Russian and want to be part of Russia.
When you start talking about ethnicity in respect of Russia and Ukraine it shows that you've wholly bought into the way the Kremlin wants you to see it.
Russia is a multinational state, and the fact that another place might have a majority 'ethnically Russian' population does not mean that it belongs to the Russian state. The same logic could be used to say that Australia is British.
Excellent analogy ... apart from, I guess, Russia adjoins the Crimea, and Australia is the other end of the world from Britain.
The Crimea was resettled with 'ethnic Russians' during the war because Stalin didn't trust the Tartar in habitants.
I understand, but the present population of the Crimea is overwhelming Russian.
Exactly. Wikipedia says that 'Almost immediately after the retaking of Crimea from Axis forces, in May 1944, the USSR State Defense Committee ordered the removal of all of the Tatar population from Crimea, including the families of Crimean Tatars serving in the Soviet Army – in trains and boxcars to Central Asia, primarily to Uzbekistan.' Which coincides with what I recall reading elsewhere. Some have since come back and in fact not all went.
When you start talking about ethnicity in respect of Russia and Ukraine it shows that you've wholly bought into the way the Kremlin wants you to see it.
Russia is a multinational state, and the fact that another place might have a majority 'ethnically Russian' population does not mean that it belongs to the Russian state. The same logic could be used to say that Australia is British.
Excellent analogy ... apart from, I guess, Russia adjoins the Crimea, and Australia is the other end of the world from Britain.
Canada adjoins the United States. Is it therefore naturally part of the United States?
Dear, dear, dear .....
If there was a majority in any Canadian province to join the US, then yes.
I think when there was a realistic prospect of Quebec seceding, and thus dividing Canada into two separate bits, then the Maritime Provinces did think seriously about their future options -- one of which was to join the US.
Still, it's not like classic tracks are at risk, the sport's hidden behind a pay wall (diminishing audience and sponsor interest), it's split into a two-tier contest, or there's an unfair pay structure to sort out.
Mr. Urquhart, it'll do nothing to enhance trust in the media if they don't report something like this.
When you start talking about ethnicity in respect of Russia and Ukraine it shows that you've wholly bought into the way the Kremlin wants you to see it.
Russia is a multinational state, and the fact that another place might have a majority 'ethnically Russian' population does not mean that it belongs to the Russian state. The same logic could be used to say that Australia is British.
Excellent analogy ... apart from, I guess, Russia adjoins the Crimea, and Australia is the other end of the world from Britain.
Canada adjoins the United States. Is it therefore naturally part of the United States?
There are almost certainly Native American peoples whose historical lands are split by the boundary.
Not like we'll see any actual reporting of Article 13 on the news...
You'll see nothing about it in the media - it's their legislation, bought and paid for.
In an ideal world an organisation like the BBC should pick this up and run with it, but nowadays they seem too worried about an anti-BBC backlash from other media to go near it.
This is the sort of crap that over time makes people vote to leave the EU.
On a related note, I didn't realize a massive problem the BBC have with BritBox. Apparently, they can only put content they have made themselves on there, so the likes of Bodyguard won't be part of it.
Now, in theory they perhaps can start to buy rights to shows, both the "live screening" and then the future digital distribution, but if you are a third party production company Netflix and Amazon have very deep pockets.
I don't see how the BBC can compete with that given their current model.
Streaming services generate a whole host of unintended problems, especially for older programs (where production contracts at the time didn't foresee online distribtion) and international rights to programs and channels. A surprising amount of BBC content isn't produced by them, and in recent years that outsourcing has become more prevalent to avoid the talent salary disclosures.
When you start talking about ethnicity in respect of Russia and Ukraine it shows that you've wholly bought into the way the Kremlin wants you to see it.
Russia is a multinational state, and the fact that another place might have a majority 'ethnically Russian' population does not mean that it belongs to the Russian state. The same logic could be used to say that Australia is British.
Excellent analogy ... apart from, I guess, Russia adjoins the Crimea, and Australia is the other end of the world from Britain.
Canada adjoins the United States. Is it therefore naturally part of the United States?
Re Crimea the issue is one of self-determination. There's not much doubt that most of the inhabitants view themselves as Russian and want to be part of Russia.
It is unbelievable that all the Remainers (Meeks, WilliamGlenn, Anazina) can't accept a very simple statement of the bleeding obvious.
Putin is for sure unpleasant, but nonetheless the inhabitants of the Crimea would vote to join Russia in a plebiscite.
Most rulers in that part of the world are unpleasant. Putin may be an unpleasant bastard, but he is an unpleasant Russian bastard and they're Russian.
Still, it's not like classic tracks are at risk, the sport's hidden behind a pay wall (diminishing audience and sponsor interest), it's split into a two-tier contest, or there's an unfair pay structure to sort out.
Mr. Urquhart, it'll do nothing to enhance trust in the media if they don't report something like this.
If they're going to do a gimmicky FL bonus point, then do it properly, let's have the Williamses and Saubers change tyres with five laps to go and do some qualifying laps.
What's going to happen here is the leader be conserving his tyres even more to try and get the extra point at the end. Maybe if the field gets spread out there will be the opportunity for someone in 6th or 7th to take a pitstop but again it's all contrived.
It will also bias drivers towards making a pitstop under a late safety car, robbing us of some excitement as those who stayed out hold back those who stopped (as at Silverstone last year).
Not like we'll see any actual reporting of Article 13 on the news...
You'll see nothing about it in the media - it's their legislation, bought and paid for.
In an ideal world an organisation like the BBC should pick this up and run with it, but nowadays they seem too worried about an anti-BBC backlash from other media to go near it.
This is the sort of crap that over time makes people vote to leave the EU.
On a related note, I didn't realize a massive problem the BBC have with BritBox. Apparently, they can only put content they have made themselves on there, so the likes of Bodyguard won't be part of it.
Now, in theory they perhaps can start to buy rights to shows, both the "live screening" and then the future digital distribution, but if you are a third party production company Netflix and Amazon have very deep pockets.
I don't see how the BBC can compete with that given their current model.
Steaming services generate a whole host of unintended problems, especially for older programs (where production contracts at the time didn't foresee online distribtion) and international rights to programs and channels. A surprising amount of BBC content isn't produced by them, and in recent years that outsourcing has become more prevalent to avoid the talent salary disclosures.
I have said this for years, the BBC funding model is totally broken for the modern world. We aren't talking about a single nation broadcasting system, where you only get what you are given on a few channels on your moving picture box in the living room.
Digital distribution is global and people want to consume content on a range of devices both at home and on the go. And yes at the moment many owners of content are trying to do regionalized and fragmented deals, but it can't last. With broadband speeds and shortly 5G, there is no barrier to streaming content and pirate apps already provide the worlds content (with shows added minutes after they have aired).
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent to which anti-Muslim and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Muslim prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
I should ignore your ravings but South Ossetia, Crimea, east Ukraine and Transnistria all say hi, not to mention the continuing attempts at destabilising the Baltic states, Poland and Serbia to name but a few. I haven’t even mentioned the Middle East or the repeated poisoning of people on British soil. So crawl back under the rock you came from.
For every South Ossetia, there is a Northern Ireland. For every Transnistria, there are the Chagos Islands or Cyprus.
Maybe Russians will just smile at Meeksian hypocrisy. They have had plenty of it.
The eastern Ukraine and the Crimea are all ethnically majority Russian. They belong to Russia. The Crimea was transferred to the Ukraine in 1954 during de-Stalinisation, despite being overwhelmingly Russian.
The Ukraine, as presently conceived by the West, is like Yugoslavia.
The West could not put the house that Tito build back together. It won't be able to hold the Ukraine together.
I have Russian friends (not as you sourly put it, Putin's idiots) who are frightened to travel to the US because of the prevailing Russo-phobia that bigoted people have caused.
Once again, if the American electors mistakenly chose Trump, the blame lies with the American people.
If Remainers don't like it that we voted Leave, the blame lies with the Remain campaign (And what did you do for Remain, other than posture on pb.com?)
It doesn't like with Russia or Russians.
Simply amazing stuff. The U.K. is on a par with the Russian regime.
There’s an important strand of Brexitism which is has a pretty dark world view.
Lies , no way the UK is as good a standard as Russia, we are at banana republic levels.
When you start talking about ethnicity in respect of Russia and Ukraine it shows that you've wholly bought into the way the Kremlin wants you to see it.
Russia is a multinational state, and the fact that another place might have a majority 'ethnically Russian' population does not mean that it belongs to the Russian state. The same logic could be used to say that Australia is British.
Excellent analogy ... apart from, I guess, Russia adjoins the Crimea, and Australia is the other end of the world from Britain.
Canada adjoins the United States. Is it therefore naturally part of the United States?
Re Crimea the issue is one of self-determination. There's not much doubt that most of the inhabitants view themselves as Russian and want to be part of Russia.
It is unbelievable that all the Remainers (Meeks, WilliamGlenn, Anazina) can't accept a very simple statement of the bleeding obvious.
Putin is for sure unpleasant, but nonetheless the inhabitants of the Crimea would vote to join Russia in a plebiscite.
Most rulers in that part of the world are unpleasant. Putin may be an unpleasant bastard, but he is an unpleasant Russian bastard and they're Russian.
You are reading something into my comments that I haven't said. Your starting position is that Ukraine "as presently conceived by the West is like Yugoslavia" and that Russia somehow has a right to claim territories with majority ethnic Russian populations. It is this argument I am disputing.
I see the last desperate attempt by May is to blame the EU for a deal she signed , a backstop she wanted and her red lines which meant a backstop was needed .
Completely irrelevant
If the deals not acceptable to the principals then it’s not going to get signed
I see the last desperate attempt by May is to blame the EU for a deal she signed , a backstop she wanted and her red lines which meant a backstop was needed .
Completely irrelevant
If the deals not acceptable to the principals then it’s not going to get signed
Hmm - you clearly don't know much about Ukraine: Of course I'm only married to a Russian speaking Odessian with family and friends all across Eastern Ukraine so not an expert - but one thing almost all Ukrainians agree on is that just because you don't like the Kiev government doesn't mean you are longing for Putin or want your countrymen being shot and blown up by the country next door. You don't seem to understand either the status the DNR and LNR claim for themselves - they don't want to lose their gangster profits by becoming part of Russia, they still claim allegiance to Ukraine. As for your comments about the US, that's nothing more than a comment straight out of the Russian Foreign Service playbook.
You are hunchman and I claim my 5 quid
A plebiscite in Crimea would demonstrate that the territory is Russian.
That doesn't mean the residents of the Crimea long for Putin (I never said that). I said that the territory is ethnically overwhelmingly Russian. It joined the Ukraine at the whim of a Soviet era politician.
You lose you 5 quid, because I am not hunchman. (In fact, my partner is also an Odessian).
Once again, my main point is that the responsibility for Trump lies with the AMERICANS. the responsibility for Brexit lies with the BRITISH.
It is racist scapegoating to blame the Russians.
I have a friend who is a Tartar - Crimea is only ethnically Russian because of the forced transportation of the Tartars a d the resettlement with Russians.
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent to which anti-Muslim and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Muslim prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
The thread header doesn't mention the London mayoral campaign which seems quite an omission.
From a narrow PR perspective, it's hard to see why the Tories should be looking to learn from Labour. Labour's PR on the antisemitism issue has been a complete disaster. The Tories meanwhile have largely avoided bad headlines.
An independent investigation into the Tory party is going to find plenty of problems. It will be mistrusted from the start, and any penalties/actions seen through the prism of Remainer vs. Leaver.
You just wait and see what the Labour membership start throwing at the Tory candidate during the next London Mayoral election...
Cons should have selected a lesbian Jewish woman - for maximum Labour implosion.
As opposed to a lesbian Jewish man*?
(*Naturally you could have a lesbian transgender man, so I am not mocking you**)
Labour anti-Semitism has become institutionalised because those who run Labour are anti-Semitic. It has been a top down exercise, which has attracted anti-Semites to the party. The real lesson that Labour can teach is do not put racists in charge.
I don't think Mrs May is a racist. But she is undoubtedly a xenophobe. Johnson gives every impression of being a racist. Many other Tories seem to believe the way to get on is to pander to the worst instincts of their party's right-wing members.
It's all a bloody mess.
Why is Theresa May a xenophobe?
On southern -
Someone posting on racism of others living in the whitish part of the country,experience of poor immigration nil.
You couldn't make it up.
I am definitely not making light of your experiences, which I think are vile and disgusting and I am sorry that you and your family have had to endure them.
But what on earth does that second sentence mean?
Life eperiences Topping.
I live in the place I was born and grew up and I tried to be a good neighbour and friend to the change in my area.
But life experiences have left me mentally scarred and I can't help that.
You seem to spend 90% of your time on here slagging off your home town.
And you seem to spend 100% here slagging off others.
When you start talking about ethnicity in respect of Russia and Ukraine it shows that you've wholly bought into the way the Kremlin wants you to see it.
Russia is a multinational state, and the fact that another place might have a majority 'ethnically Russian' population does not mean that it belongs to the Russian state. The same logic could be used to say that Australia is British.
Excellent analogy ... apart from, I guess, Russia adjoins the Crimea, and Australia is the other end of the world from Britain.
Canada adjoins the United States. Is it therefore naturally part of the United States?
Re Crimea the issue is one of self-determination. There's not much doubt that most of the inhabitants view themselves as Russian and want to be part of Russia.
It is unbelievable that all the Remainers (Meeks, WilliamGlenn, Anazina) can't accept a very simple statement of the bleeding obvious.
Putin is for sure unpleasant, but nonetheless the inhabitants of the Crimea would vote to join Russia in a plebiscite.
Most rulers in that part of the world are unpleasant. Putin may be an unpleasant bastard, but he is an unpleasant Russian bastard and they're Russian.
You are reading something into my comments that I haven't said. Your starting position is that Ukraine "as presently conceived by the West is like Yugoslavia" and that Russia somehow has a right to claim territories with majority ethnic Russian populations. It is this argument I am disputing.
The legality of the transfer of the Crimea from Russia to the Ukraine in 1954 is highly debatable.
According to wiki, Henry Kissinger stated it was possible Khruschev gave Crimea to Ukraine because he was drunk at the time.
My guess is that is not a basis for a long-lived solution.
If a province has a majority Russian population and it wants to join Russia, then I don't have a problem with that.
Hmm - you clearly don't know much about Ukraine: Of course I'm only married to a Russian speaking Odessian with family and friends all across Eastern Ukraine so not an expert - but one thing almost all Ukrainians agree on is that just because you don't like the Kiev government doesn't mean you are longing for Putin or want your countrymen being shot and blown up by the country next door. You don't seem to understand either the status the DNR and LNR claim for themselves - they don't want to lose their gangster profits by becoming part of Russia, they still claim allegiance to Ukraine. As for your comments about the US, that's nothing more than a comment straight out of the Russian Foreign Service playbook.
You are hunchman and I claim my 5 quid
A plebiscite in Crimea would demonstrate that the territory is Russian.
That doesn't mean the residents of the Crimea long for Putin (I never said that). I said that the territory is ethnically overwhelmingly Russian. It joined the Ukraine at the whim of a Soviet era politician.
You lose you 5 quid, because I am not hunchman. (In fact, my partner is also an Odessian).
Once again, my main point is that the responsibility for Trump lies with the AMERICANS. the responsibility for Brexit lies with the BRITISH.
It is racist scapegoating to blame the Russians.
I have a friend who is a Tartar - Crimea is only ethnically Russian because of the forced transportation of the Tartars a d the resettlement with Russians.
I understand that. N. Ireland or Gibraltar are only British for the same reason.
We are all too familiar with white settlers in Wales, as well.
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent to which anti-Muslim and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Muslim prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
We have yet to become victims of terrorists who operate under the flag of the Jews. This is what has happened wrt Islam, however misguided (Islamic terrorism hasn't operated under the flag of the Jews, obvs).
When you start talking about ethnicity in respect of Russia and Ukraine it shows that you've wholly bought into the way the Kremlin wants you to see it.
Russia is a multinational state, and the fact that another place might have a majority 'ethnically Russian' population does not mean that it belongs to the Russian state. The same logic could be used to say that Australia is British.
Excellent analogy ... apart from, I guess, Russia adjoins the Crimea, and Australia is the other end of the world from Britain.
Canada adjoins the United States. Is it therefore naturally part of the United States?
Re Crimea the issue is one of self-determination. There's not much doubt that most of the inhabitants view themselves as Russian and want to be part of Russia.
It is unbelievable that all the Remainers (Meeks, WilliamGlenn, Anazina) can't accept a very simple statement of the bleeding obvious.
Putin is for sure unpleasant, but nonetheless the inhabitants of the Crimea would vote to join Russia in a plebiscite.
Most rulers in that part of the world are unpleasant. Putin may be an unpleasant bastard, but he is an unpleasant Russian bastard and they're Russian.
You are reading something into my comments that I haven't said. Your starting position is that Ukraine "as presently conceived by the West is like Yugoslavia" and that Russia somehow has a right to claim territories with majority ethnic Russian populations. It is this argument I am disputing.
To be fair, the southern part of what we knew as Russia, before the break up of the Soviet Union is a hotchpotch of different ethnicities, cultures and religions, partly due to it's being an area where several migration streams clash, partly to the effect of the Golden Horde in the 13th Century and the Rise of Islam a bit earlier, and partly to the imperialist activities of the rulers of Russia, whether Czarist or Communist.
When you start talking about ethnicity in respect of Russia and Ukraine it shows that you've wholly bought into the way the Kremlin wants you to see it.
Russia is a multinational state, and the fact that another place might have a majority 'ethnically Russian' population does not mean that it belongs to the Russian state. The same logic could be used to say that Australia is British.
Excellent analogy ... apart from, I guess, Russia adjoins the Crimea, and Australia is the other end of the world from Britain.
Canada adjoins the United States. Is it therefore naturally part of the United States?
Re Crimea the issue is one of self-determination. There's not much doubt that most of the inhabitants view themselves as Russian and want to be part of Russia.
It is unbelievable that all the Remainers (Meeks, WilliamGlenn, Anazina) can't accept a very simple statement of the bleeding obvious.
Putin is for sure unpleasant, but nonetheless the inhabitants of the Crimea would vote to join Russia in a plebiscite.
Most rulers in that part of the world are unpleasant. Putin may be an unpleasant bastard, but he is an unpleasant Russian bastard and they're Russian.
You are reading something into my comments that I haven't said. Your starting position is that Ukraine "as presently conceived by the West is like Yugoslavia" and that Russia somehow has a right to claim territories with majority ethnic Russian populations. It is this argument I am disputing.
To be fair, the southern part of what we knew as Russia, before the break up of the Soviet Union is a hotchpotch of different ethnicities, cultures and religions, partly due to it's being an area where several migration streams clash, partly to the effect of the Golden Horde in the 13th Century and the Rise of Islam a bit earlier, and partly to the imperialist activities of the rulers of Russia, whether Czarist or Communist.
The same is true of Russia now. YBarddCwsc says Ukraine is like Yugoslavia, but that is far more true of Russia itself.
Sounds like the jury failed to be convinced that he was grossly negligent.
That's an amazing verdict given the facts. He committed to the inside loop at less than half the mandated altitude.
Could he/anyone have done it?
Nope. The plane couldn't have finished the loop without being over-stressed under high G-forces.
Once he got close to the 3/4 point of the loop (nose pointing down) an accident was inevitable, he shoud have rolled the right way up at the top when he realised he was too low.
Oh, and the aircraft had a sticky and somewhat unreliable altimeter, just what you want for low-level aerobatics at a public display.
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent to which anti-Muslim and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Muslim prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
We have yet to become victims of terrorists who operate under the flag of the Jews. This is what has happened wrt Islam, however misguided (Islamic terrorism hasn't operated under the flag of the Jews, obvs).
Islamic Fundamentalism has more in common with Fascism than it has in common with Judaism. Far right hatred and terrorism and Islamic hatred and terrorism are two sides of the same coin and should be treated the same.
Nobody would accuse someone who opposes Fascism as being Fasciophobic.
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent to which anti-Muslim and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Muslim prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
Eh? Neither of the two factors I cited applies to Jews, so you are talking utter nonsense.
When you start talking about ethnicity in respect of Russia and Ukraine it shows that you've wholly bought into the way the Kremlin wants you to see it.
Russia is a multinational state, and the fact that another place might have a majority 'ethnically Russian' population does not mean that it belongs to the Russian state. The same logic could be used to say that Australia is British.
Excellent analogy ... apart from, I guess, Russia adjoins the Crimea, and Australia is the other end of the world from Britain.
Canada adjoins the United States. Is it therefore naturally part of the United States?
Re Crimea the issue is one of self-determination. There's not much doubt that most of the inhabitants view themselves as Russian and want to be part of Russia.
It is unbelievable that all the Remainers (Meeks, WilliamGlenn, Anazina) can't accept a very simple statement of the bleeding obvious.
Putin is for sure unpleasant, but nonetheless the inhabitants of the Crimea would vote to join Russia in a plebiscite.
Most rulers in that part of the world are unpleasant. Putin may be an unpleasant bastard, but he is an unpleasant Russian bastard and they're Russian.
You are reading something into my comments that I haven't said. Your starting position is that Ukraine "as presently conceived by the West is like Yugoslavia" and that Russia somehow has a right to claim territories with majority ethnic Russian populations. It is this argument I am disputing.
The legality of the transfer of the Crimea from Russia to the Ukraine in 1954 is highly debatable.
According to wiki, Henry Kissinger stated it was possible Khruschev gave Crimea to Ukraine because he was drunk at the time.
My guess is that is not a basis for a long-lived solution.
If a province has a majority Russian population and it wants to join Russia, then I don't have a problem with that.
Well indeed. And had the majority voted for that peacefully then I would have no problem with that.
The fact the military invaded first and then the public under military occupation "voted" makes that void though.
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent to which anti-Muslim and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Muslim prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
We have yet to become victims of terrorists who operate under the flag of the Jews. This is what has happened wrt Islam, however misguided (Islamic terrorism hasn't operated under the flag of the Jews, obvs).
You make my point.
The readiness to find excuses for anti-Muslim prejudice is only too apparent.
The thread header doesn't mention the London mayoral campaign which seems quite an omission.
From a narrow PR perspective, it's hard to see why the Tories should be looking to learn from Labour. Labour's PR on the antisemitism issue has been a complete disaster. The Tories meanwhile have largely avoided bad headlines.
An independent investigation into the Tory party is going to find plenty of problems. It will be mistrusted from the start, and any penalties/actions seen through the prism of Remainer vs. Leaver.
You just wait and see what the Labour membership start throwing at the Tory candidate during the next London Mayoral election...
Cons should have selected a lesbian Jewish woman - for maximum Labour implosion.
As opposed to a lesbian Jewish man*?
(*Naturally you could have a lesbian transgender man, so I am not mocking you**)
** honestly
The candidates are being, I assume, lined up for Peterborough. Could be interesting,
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent to which anti-Muslim and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Muslim prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
Sure, but you also need to transpose to a world where we've had multiple Jewish terrorist attacks in the last 20 or so years.
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent to which anti-Jewish and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Jewish prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Jewish terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that antisemitism is vigorously addressed and challenged.
The thread header doesn't mention the London mayoral campaign which seems quite an omission.
From a narrow PR perspective, it's hard to see why the Tories should be looking to learn from Labour. Labour's PR on the antisemitism issue has been a complete disaster. The Tories meanwhile have largely avoided bad headlines.
An independent investigation into the Tory party is going to find plenty of problems. It will be mistrusted from the start, and any penalties/actions seen through the prism of Remainer vs. Leaver.
If I had listed all the examples that are out there the header, quite long enough, would have become unwieldy. Yes - that campaign was a real low by the Tories. Hence the need for the action I am suggesting.
Fair enough - I just thought that campaign was particularly noteworthy.
The action is needed in the sense that it is the right thing to do, but I think you're underestimating how damaging this would be to the Tories politically. A lot of senior people could find themselves in trouble.
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent to which anti-Muslim and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Muslim prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
Eh? Neither of the two factors I cited applies to Jews, so you are talking utter nonsense.
Fine. You make my point as well. No shortage of excuses here for bigotry.
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent to which anti-Muslim and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Muslim prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
Eh? Neither of the two factors I cited applies to Jews, so you are talking utter nonsense.
Fine. You make my point as well. No shortage of excuses here for bigotry.
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent to which anti-Muslim and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Muslim prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
We have yet to become victims of terrorists who operate under the flag of the Jews. This is what has happened wrt Islam, however misguided (Islamic terrorism hasn't operated under the flag of the Jews, obvs).
You make my point.
The readiness to find excuses for anti-Muslim prejudice is only too apparent.
You seem to think that analysis of possible contributory causes is making excuses. That's a particularly offensive, as well as inane, position given that my original post was exactly about how anti-Muslim prejudice should be "vigorously addressed and challenged."
The thread header doesn't mention the London mayoral campaign which seems quite an omission.
From a narrow PR perspective, it's hard to see why the Tories should be looking to learn from Labour. Labour's PR on the antisemitism issue has been a complete disaster. The Tories meanwhile have largely avoided bad headlines.
An independent investigation into the Tory party is going to find plenty of problems. It will be mistrusted from the start, and any penalties/actions seen through the prism of Remainer vs. Leaver.
You just wait and see what the Labour membership start throwing at the Tory candidate during the next London Mayoral election...
Cons should have selected a lesbian Jewish woman - for maximum Labour implosion.
As opposed to a lesbian Jewish man*?
(*Naturally you could have a lesbian transgender man, so I am not mocking you**)
** honestly
The candidates are being, I assume, lined up for Peterborough. Could be interesting,
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent to which anti-Muslim and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Muslim prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
We have yet to become victims of terrorists who operate under the flag of the Jews. This is what has happened wrt Islam, however misguided (Islamic terrorism hasn't operated under the flag of the Jews, obvs).
You make my point.
The readiness to find excuses for anti-Muslim prejudice is only too apparent.
The point is a simple one. There are Muslims out there who perpetrate terrorist acts in the name of Islam. It is not surprising that some people albeit misguidedly apply the stated ideals of those Muslims to all Muslims, as they are being told by those terrorists that the acts of terror are acts of pure Islam.
Sounds like the jury failed to be convinced that he was grossly negligent.
That's an amazing verdict given the facts. He committed to the inside loop at less than half the mandated altitude.
In an aircraft with an expired C of A and numerous undocumented modifications.
The majority of the aviation display community certainly think he was grossly negligent, he's lucky they weren't on the jury.
He should have abandoned at the top of the loop and rolled out, as you well know *everyone* checks their altitude at the top of a loop...
What we have now is a curtailing of displays up and down the country, as the actions of one idiot lead to increasing regulation on everyone else.
You would have thought he'd have used all his luck up in surviving a catastrophic crash which afaicr only left the pilot's bathtub intact, obviously a bit left over. He should probably give up playing the lottery though.
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent to which anti-Muslim and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Muslim prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
We have yet to become victims of terrorists who operate under the flag of the Jews. This is what has happened wrt Islam, however misguided (Islamic terrorism hasn't operated under the flag of the Jews, obvs).
You make my point.
The readiness to find excuses for anti-Muslim prejudice is only too apparent.
You're mistaking anti-terrorist prejudice, and anti-integration prejudice (such as the schools being boycotted for teaching sex education), for anti-Muslim prejudice.
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent to which anti-Muslim and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Muslim prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
Eh? Neither of the two factors I cited applies to Jews, so you are talking utter nonsense.
Fine. You make my point as well. No shortage of excuses here for bigotry.
Is it bigotry to oppose fascists?
Absolutely not - but accusations of same are used to try and shut down debate or criticism
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent to which anti-Muslim and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Muslim prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
Sure, but you also need to transpose to a world where we've had multiple Jewish terrorist attacks in the last 20 or so years.
The point is that just because there are terrorist attacks by people who belong to particular groups - be they Jewish, Roman Catholic, Islamic or whatever - that in no way justifies prejudice against those groups.
Are people unaware that Jewish groups used to use terrorist tactics? Did that justify antisemitism? Of course not.
Can people really be ignorant that there were periods in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when there was popular agitation in this country against Jews because the areas where Jewish migrants had settled seemed alien and "other"? Was antisemitism understandable or excusable then?
The answer from today's apologists for anti-Muslim prejudice today is a resounding "Yes".
When you start talking about ethnicity in respect of Russia and Ukraine it shows that you've wholly bought into the way the Kremlin wants you to see it.
Russia is a multinational state, and the fact that another place might have a majority 'ethnically Russian' population does not mean that it belongs to the Russian state. The same logic could be used to say that Australia is British.
Excellent analogy ... apart from, I guess, Russia adjoins the Crimea, and Australia is the other end of the world from Britain.
Canada adjoins the United States. Is it therefore naturally part of the United States?
Re Crimea the issue is one of self-determination. There's not much doubt that most of the inhabitants view themselves as Russian and want to be part of Russia.
It is unbelievable that all the Remainers (Meeks, WilliamGlenn, Anazina) can't accept a very simple statement of the bleeding obvious.
Putin is for sure unpleasant, but nonetheless the inhabitants of the Crimea would vote to join Russia in a plebiscite.
Most rulers in that part of the world are unpleasant. Putin may be an unpleasant bastard, but he is an unpleasant Russian bastard and they're Russian.
You are reading something into my comments that I haven't said. Your starting position is that Ukraine "as presently conceived by the West is like Yugoslavia" and that Russia somehow has a right to claim territories with majority ethnic Russian populations. It is this argument I am disputing.
The legality of the transfer of the Crimea from Russia to the Ukraine in 1954 is highly debatable.
According to wiki, Henry Kissinger stated it was possible Khruschev gave Crimea to Ukraine because he was drunk at the time.
My guess is that is not a basis for a long-lived solution.
If a province has a majority Russian population and it wants to join Russia, then I don't have a problem with that.
Well indeed. And had the majority voted for that peacefully then I would have no problem with that.
The fact the military invaded first and then the public under military occupation "voted" makes that void though.
Under what circumstance do you envisage the Government of the Ukraine would have given their assent for a plebiscite in the Crimea?
When you start talking about ethnicity in respect of Russia and Ukraine it shows that you've wholly bought into the way the Kremlin wants you to see it.
Russia is a multinational state, and the fact that another place might have a majority 'ethnically Russian' population does not mean that it belongs to the Russian state. The same logic could be used to say that Australia is British.
Excellent analogy ... apart from, I guess, Russia adjoins the Crimea, and Australia is the other end of the world from Britain.
Canada adjoins the United States. Is it therefore naturally part of the United States?
Re Crimea the issue is one of self-determination. There's not much doubt that most of the inhabitants view themselves as Russian and want to be part of Russia.
It is unbelievable that all the Remainers (Meeks, WilliamGlenn, Anazina) can't accept a very simple statement of the bleeding obvious.
Putin is for sure unpleasant, but nonetheless the inhabitants of the Crimea would vote to join Russia in a plebiscite.
Most rulers in that part of the world are unpleasant. Putin may be an unpleasant bastard, but he is an unpleasant Russian bastard and they're Russian.
You are reading something into my comments that I haven't said. Your starting position is that Ukraine "as presently conceived by the West is like Yugoslavia" and that Russia somehow has a right to claim territories with majority ethnic Russian populations. It is this argument I am disputing.
The legality of the transfer of the Crimea from Russia to the Ukraine in 1954 is highly debatable.
According to wiki, Henry Kissinger stated it was possible Khruschev gave Crimea to Ukraine because he was drunk at the time.
My guess is that is not a basis for a long-lived solution.
If a province has a majority Russian population and it wants to join Russia, then I don't have a problem with that.
Well indeed. And had the majority voted for that peacefully then I would have no problem with that.
The fact the military invaded first and then the public under military occupation "voted" makes that void though.
Under what circumstance do you envisage the Government of the Ukraine would have given their assent for a plebiscite in the Crimea?
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent to which anti-Muslim and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Muslim prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
Sure, but you also need to transpose to a world where we've had multiple Jewish terrorist attacks in the last 20 or so years.
The point is that just because there are terrorist attacks by people who belong to particular groups - be they Jewish, Roman Catholic, Islamic or whatever - that in no way justifies prejudice against those groups.
Are people unaware that Jewish groups used to use terrorist tactics? Did that justify antisemitism? Of course not.
Can people really be ignorant that there were periods in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when there was popular agitation in this country against Jews because the areas where Jewish migrants had settled seemed alien and "other"? Was antisemitism understandable or excusable then?
The answer from today's apologists for anti-Muslim prejudice today is a resounding "Yes".
Except...the terrorists do it in the name of Islam for and on behalf of all Muslims (they say). They want a global caliphate. That is the critical difference.
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent to which anti-Muslim and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Muslim prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
Sure, but you also need to transpose to a world where we've had multiple Jewish terrorist attacks in the last 20 or so years.
The point is that just because there are terrorist attacks by people who belong to particular groups - be they Jewish, Roman Catholic, Islamic or whatever - that in no way justifies prejudice against those groups.
Are people unaware that Jewish groups used to use terrorist tactics? Did that justify antisemitism? Of course not.
Can people really be ignorant that there were periods in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when there was popular agitation in this country against Jews because the areas where Jewish migrants had settled seemed alien and "other"? Was antisemitism understandable or excusable then?
The answer from today's apologists for anti-Muslim prejudice today is a resounding "Yes".
Ah, I see the problem. You don't understand the word 'surprising'. My apologies for using over-complicated language.
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent to which anti-Muslim and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Muslim prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
Sure, but you also need to transpose to a world where we've had multiple Jewish terrorist attacks in the last 20 or so years.
The point is that just because there are terrorist attacks by people who belong to particular groups - be they Jewish, Roman Catholic, Islamic or whatever - that in no way justifies prejudice against those groups.
Are people unaware that Jewish groups used to use terrorist tactics? Did that justify antisemitism? Of course not.
Can people really be ignorant that there were periods in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when there was popular agitation in this country against Jews because the areas where Jewish migrants had settled seemed alien and "other"? Was antisemitism understandable or excusable then?
The answer from today's apologists for anti-Muslim prejudice today is a resounding "Yes".
Are there British Jews who blow up their fellow citizens, and claim to be acting in the name of their religion?
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent to which anti-Muslim and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Muslim prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
We have yet to become victims of terrorists who operate under the flag of the Jews. This is what has happened wrt Islam, however misguided (Islamic terrorism hasn't operated under the flag of the Jews, obvs).
You make my point.
The readiness to find excuses for anti-Muslim prejudice is only too apparent.
You're mistaking anti-terrorist prejudice, and anti-integration prejudice (such as the schools being boycotted for teaching sex education), for anti-Muslim prejudice.
And in 100% of cases, the bigots here will defend their anti-Muslim prejudice on the basis that it's really "anti-terrorist". And at the same time they will condemn any criticism of the state of Israel on the basis that it's antisemitic.
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent to which anti-Muslim and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Muslim prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
Sure, but you also need to transpose to a world where we've had multiple Jewish terrorist attacks in the last 20 or so years.
The point is that just because there are terrorist attacks by people who belong to particular groups - be they Jewish, Roman Catholic, Islamic or whatever - that in no way justifies prejudice against those groups.
Are people unaware that Jewish groups used to use terrorist tactics? Did that justify antisemitism? Of course not.
Can people really be ignorant that there were periods in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when there was popular agitation in this country against Jews because the areas where Jewish migrants had settled seemed alien and "other"? Was antisemitism understandable or excusable then?
The answer from today's apologists for anti-Muslim prejudice today is a resounding "Yes".
Are there British Jews who blow up their fellow citizens, and claim to be acting in the name of their religion?
If there were, would that justify antisemitism?
Your argument is so stupid that it makes Theresa May look like Einstein.
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent to which anti-Muslim and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Muslim prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
We have yet to become victims of terrorists who operate under the flag of the Jews. This is what has happened wrt Islam, however misguided (Islamic terrorism hasn't operated under the flag of the Jews, obvs).
You make my point.
The readiness to find excuses for anti-Muslim prejudice is only too apparent.
You're mistaking anti-terrorist prejudice, and anti-integration prejudice (such as the schools being boycotted for teaching sex education), for anti-Muslim prejudice.
And in 100% of cases, the bigots here will defend their anti-Muslim prejudice on the basis that it's really "anti-terrorist". And at the same time they will condemn any criticism of the state of Israel on the basis that it's antisemitic.
In an ideal world, there would have been a free and fair plebiscite to decide the future of the Crimea.
That would have required assent from the Ukraine.
Russia invaded, but I don't regard the invasion as any great injustice.
If the population of the Crimea did not by and large want to join Russia, there would be an insurgency in response to the invasion (as there is in some parts of Russia).
In an ideal world, there would have been a free and fair plebiscite to decide the future of the Crimea.
That would have required assent from the Ukraine.
Russia invaded, but I don't regard the invasion as any great injustice.
If the population of the Crimea did not by and large want to join Russia, there would be an insurgency in response to the invasion (as there is in some parts of Russia).
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent to which anti-Muslim and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Muslim prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
We have yet to become victims of terrorists who operate under the flag of the Jews. This is what has happened wrt Islam, however misguided (Islamic terrorism hasn't operated under the flag of the Jews, obvs).
You make my point.
The readiness to find excuses for anti-Muslim prejudice is only too apparent.
You're mistaking anti-terrorist prejudice, and anti-integration prejudice (such as the schools being boycotted for teaching sex education), for anti-Muslim prejudice.
And in 100% of cases, the bigots here will defend their anti-Muslim prejudice on the basis that it's really "anti-terrorist". And at the same time they will condemn any criticism of the state of Israel on the basis that it's antisemitic.
That fools no one with half a brain.
If people do horrible things to other people, in the name of their religion, you can't try and brush aside their religious views as irrelevant.
Mind you, there's a rather entertaining irony in my being accused of anti-Muslim prejudice, given that my grandfather was Guardian of the Imam Reza shrine in Mashad.
He should have abandoned at the top of the loop and rolled out, as you well know *everyone* checks their altitude at the top of a loop...
The error came before then. He didn't have appropriate speed or altitude at the start and so should not have initiated. My wild speculation is that he did check (it would be almost impossible not to just out of reflexive habit) but thought he could get away with it because the Hunter is a forgiving old girl.
Utterly disgraceful decision. What were the jury thinking . If hadn’t done that illegal manoeuvre then he would have had time to pull out and not crash .
Mind you, there's a rather entertaining irony in my being accused of anti-Muslim prejudice, given that my grandfather was Guardian of the Imam Reza shrine in Mashad.
Yes - it surely is ironic. Just like Boris Johnson's antics.
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent t This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
Sure, but you also need to transpose to a world where we've had multiple Jewish terrorist attacks in the last 20 or so years.
The point is that just because there are terrorist attacks by people who belong to particular groups - be they Jewish, Roman Catholic, Islamic or whatever - that in no way justifies prejudice against those groups.
Are people unaware that Jewish groups used to use terrorist tactics? Did that justify antisemitism? Of course not.
Can people really be ignorant that there were periods in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when there was popular agitation in this country against Jews because the areas where Jewish migrants had settled seemed alien and "other"? Was antisemitism understandable or excusable then?
The answer from today's apologists for anti-Muslim prejudice today is a resounding "Yes".
Are there British Jews who blow up their fellow citizens, and claim to be acting in the name of their religion?
If there were, would that justify antisemitism?
Your argument is so stupid that it makes Theresa May look like Einstein.
It would make it understandable that certain people would look at Jews and have concerns that they were in some way condoning it, yes. Is that anti-semitic? No because anti-semitism is a baseless hatred of Jews. If the Jews were going around bombing the Circle Line in the name of Jews, then any discrimination against Jews wouldn't be baseless.
It would of course be grossly unfair on all those law-abiding uninvolved in terrorism Jews.
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
/blockquote>
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
Sure, but you also need to transpose to a world where we've had multiple Jewish terrorist attacks in the last 20 or so years.
The answer from today's apologists for anti-Muslim prejudice today is a resounding "Yes".
Are there British Jews who blow up their fellow citizens, and claim to be acting in the name of their religion?
If there were, would that justify antisemitism?
Your argument is so stupid that it makes Theresa May look like Einstein.
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
.
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
Sure, but you also need to transpose to a world where we've had multiple Jewish terrorist attacks in the last 20 or so years.
The answer from today's apologists for anti-Muslim prejudice today is a resounding "Yes".
Are there British Jews who blow up their fellow citizens, and claim to be acting in the name of their religion?
If there were, would that justify antisemitism?
Your argument is so stupid that it makes Theresa May look like Einstein.
Would it justify it? No. Would it make it unsurprising? Yes.
The thread header doesn't mention the London mayoral campaign which seems quite an omission.
From a narrow PR perspective, it's hard to see why the Tories should be looking to learn from Labour. Labour's PR on the antisemitism issue has been a complete disaster. The Tories meanwhile have largely avoided bad headlines.
An independent investigation into the Tory party is going to find plenty of problems. It will be mistrusted from the start, and any penalties/actions seen through the prism of Remainer vs. Leaver.
If I had listed all the examples that are out there the header, quite long enough, would have become unwieldy. Yes - that campaign was a real low by the Tories. Hence the need for the action I am suggesting.
Fair enough - I just thought that campaign was particularly noteworthy.
The action is needed in the sense that it is the right thing to do, but I think you're underestimating how damaging this would be to the Tories politically. A lot of senior people could find themselves in trouble.
Utterly disgraceful decision. What were the jury thinking . If hadn’t done that illegal manoeuvre then he would have had time to pull out and not crash .
The jury should hang their heads in shame .
Actually it was probably the correct decision. The prosecution had to prove their case of criminal negligence beyond reasonable doubt. That's a very high bar, and rightly so.
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent to which anti-Muslim and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Muslim prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
We have yet to become victims of terrorists who operate under the flag of the Jews. This is what has happened wrt Islam, however misguided (Islamic terrorism hasn't operated under the flag of the Jews, obvs).
You make my point.
The readiness to find excuses for anti-Muslim prejudice is only too apparent.
You're mistaking anti-terrorist prejudice, and anti-integration prejudice (such as the schools being boycotted for teaching sex education), for anti-Muslim prejudice.
And in 100% of cases, the bigots here will defend their anti-Muslim prejudice on the basis that it's really "anti-terrorist". And at the same time they will condemn any criticism of the state of Israel on the basis that it's antisemitic.
That fools no one with half a brain.
If people do horrible things to other people, in the name of their religion, you can't try and brush aside their religious views as irrelevant.
The more upfront you are about justifying prejudice against Muslims in general because of the actions of Muslim terrorists the better. Clarity is good.
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent to which anti-Muslim and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Muslim prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
We have yet to become victims of terrorists who operate under the flag of the Jews. This is what has happened wrt Islam, however misguided (Islamic terrorism hasn't operated under the flag of the Jews, obvs).
You make my point.
The readiness to find excuses for anti-Muslim prejudice is only too apparent.
You're mistaking anti-terrorist prejudice, and anti-integration prejudice (such as the schools being boycotted for teaching sex education), for anti-Muslim prejudice.
And in 100% of cases, the bigots here will defend their anti-Muslim prejudice on the basis that it's really "anti-terrorist". And at the same time they will condemn any criticism of the state of Israel on the basis that it's antisemitic.
That fools no one with half a brain.
The problem is not Islam or Muslims (he says, posting from a peaceful Muslim country).
The problem is people who think violence furthers their cause, and people who think they should be exempt from British norms on social values while living in Britain.
The problem of integration is exacerbated by those on the reactionary Left, those who for example were over the moon at Catholic adoption agencies being shut down because of anti-homophobic legislation, being completely silent when other groups wish to treat women and gays as second-class citizens against the laws and norms of the country in which they live.
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent to which anti-Muslim and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Muslim prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
We have yet to become victims of terrorists who operate under the flag of the Jews. This is what has happened wrt Islam, however misguided (Islamic terrorism hasn't operated under the flag of the Jews, obvs).
You make my point.
The readiness to find excuses for anti-Muslim prejudice is only too apparent.
You're mistaking anti-terrorist prejudice, and anti-integration prejudice (such as the schools being boycotted for teaching sex education), for anti-Muslim prejudice.
And in 100% of cases, the bigots here will defend their anti-Muslim prejudice on the basis that it's really "anti-terrorist". And at the same time they will condemn any criticism of the state of Israel on the basis that it's antisemitic.
That fools no one with half a brain.
If people do horrible things to other people, in the name of their religion, you can't try and brush aside their religious views as irrelevant.
The more upfront you are about justifying prejudice against Muslims in general because of the actions of Muslim terrorists the better. Clarity is good.
In the long run invasions can be successful, particularly if the population adopts the identity of the invader either through immigration or a shift in identity.
It's why nations tend to prefer to go for historical hinterlands (At least first) in their invasions, and why invading somewhere with no cultural or historical affiliation to any hinterland is less likely to succeed unless you can convince the natives of a change of identity or get mass immigration in...
If the population is more satisfied with the invader than the original host nation, should the original invader then be expelled ?
Comments
I am suggesting people need to take responsibility for their own actions, and their own decisions, their own elections and their own electorate.
I am suggesting that Americans are responsible for electing Trump.
As regards Brexit, it was a decision of the British people. If it was the wrong decision, we should look to ourselves & our politicians & our people and the society we created for the blame.
I guess there's a bridge, at least.
It's up to Russia to take responsibility for its own actions, and the consequences of those actions.
Peter Wilding writes that the word he invented, Brexit, could "sadly be an epitaph for a nation's decline and possible fall"."
https://news.sky.com/story/brexits-my-fault-how-the-word-i-invented-could-be-an-epitaph-for-the-nations-decline-11576816
I live in the place I was born and grew up and I tried to be a good neighbour and friend to the change in my area.
But life experiences have left me mentally scarred and I can't help that.
In an ideal world an organisation like the BBC should pick this up and run with it, but nowadays they seem too worried about an anti-BBC backlash from other media to go near it.
This is the sort of crap that over time makes people vote to leave the EU.
What next, half-distance points like they do in Indycar?
There is another worrying trend starting to emerge. Because Google etc are putting in place much stricter measures to ensure they have their arses covered, companies are now using this to try and shut down stuff they don't like e.g. Vox did it over their shit show of a PC build that was widely mocked by tech YouTubers and apparently Sky are becoming very aggressive at reporting videos to YouTube, they don't like the informational content of.
Furthermore, even removing videos that have complaints about can still mean you have strikes against you...and if you want to challenge this you have to fight the company, not YouTube, and the company doesn't have to respond.
Now obviously if it is media company vs media company, the lawyers can get involved...if it is some bloke in his basement, they can't afford to hire lawyers to force somebody like Sky to listen to the fact they might have had a false complaint against them.
Is your rule: majority Russian = Russian, majority non-Russian = also Russian?
Based on your logic we should just call the UK England, as is still common in parts of the world.
I genuinely cannot understand your posts at times. The one above is a case in point.
100% agreed.
I would approve the backstop today if that was the situation.
Now, in theory they perhaps can start to buy rights to shows, both the "live screening" and then the future digital distribution, but if you are a third party production company Netflix and Amazon have very deep pockets.
I don't see how the BBC can compete with that given their current model.
Expect the same sort of EU legislation directed specifically against British companies after we leave the EU.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/08/shoreham-airshow-trial-pilot-andrew-hill-cleared-manslaughter/
Sounds like the jury failed to be convinced that he was grossly negligent.
However, with a commercial archive service, at least it's a revenue-generating proposition and you can judge how to spend the money it raises. With demands to put the whole archive on iPlayer for free ("we already paid for that"), you're fighting a losing battle with the cost required.
'Almost immediately after the retaking of Crimea from Axis forces, in May 1944, the USSR State Defense Committee ordered the removal of all of the Tatar population from Crimea, including the families of Crimean Tatars serving in the Soviet Army – in trains and boxcars to Central Asia, primarily to Uzbekistan.'
Which coincides with what I recall reading elsewhere. Some have since come back and in fact not all went.
If there was a majority in any Canadian province to join the US, then yes.
I think when there was a realistic prospect of Quebec seceding, and thus dividing Canada into two separate bits, then the Maritime Provinces did think seriously about their future options -- one of which was to join the US.
Still, it's not like classic tracks are at risk, the sport's hidden behind a pay wall (diminishing audience and sponsor interest), it's split into a two-tier contest, or there's an unfair pay structure to sort out.
Mr. Urquhart, it'll do nothing to enhance trust in the media if they don't report something like this.
Putin is for sure unpleasant, but nonetheless the inhabitants of the Crimea would vote to join Russia in a plebiscite.
Most rulers in that part of the world are unpleasant. Putin may be an unpleasant bastard, but he is an unpleasant Russian bastard and they're Russian.
What's going to happen here is the leader be conserving his tyres even more to try and get the extra point at the end. Maybe if the field gets spread out there will be the opportunity for someone in 6th or 7th to take a pitstop but again it's all contrived.
It will also bias drivers towards making a pitstop under a late safety car, robbing us of some excitement as those who stayed out hold back those who stopped (as at Silverstone last year).
Digital distribution is global and people want to consume content on a range of devices both at home and on the go. And yes at the moment many owners of content are trying to do regionalized and fragmented deals, but it can't last. With broadband speeds and shortly 5G, there is no barrier to streaming content and pirate apps already provide the worlds content (with shows added minutes after they have aired).
On the question of the extent to which anti-Muslim and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Muslim prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
If the deals not acceptable to the principals then it’s not going to get signed
Either it is changed or there’s no deal
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
The majority of the aviation display community certainly think he was grossly negligent, he's lucky they weren't on the jury.
He should have abandoned at the top of the loop and rolled out, as you well know *everyone* checks their altitude at the top of a loop...
What we have now is a curtailing of displays up and down the country, as the actions of one idiot lead to increasing regulation on everyone else.
(*Naturally you could have a lesbian transgender man, so I am not mocking you**)
** honestly
According to wiki, Henry Kissinger stated it was possible Khruschev gave Crimea to Ukraine because he was drunk at the time.
My guess is that is not a basis for a long-lived solution.
If a province has a majority Russian population and it wants to join Russia, then I don't have a problem with that.
We are all too familiar with white settlers in Wales, as well.
Once he got close to the 3/4 point of the loop (nose pointing down) an accident was inevitable, he shoud have rolled the right way up at the top when he realised he was too low.
Oh, and the aircraft had a sticky and somewhat unreliable altimeter, just what you want for low-level aerobatics at a public display.
Nobody would accuse someone who opposes Fascism as being Fasciophobic.
The fact the military invaded first and then the public under military occupation "voted" makes that void though.
The readiness to find excuses for anti-Muslim prejudice is only too apparent.
https://twitter.com/MrTCHarris/status/1103976102857445376
An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent to which anti-Jewish and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Jewish prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Jewish terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that antisemitism is vigorously addressed and challenged.
That exercise in full.
The action is needed in the sense that it is the right thing to do, but I think you're underestimating how damaging this would be to the Tories politically. A lot of senior people could find themselves in trouble.
Lab: https://twitter.com/LisaForbes_
https://order-order.com/2019/03/08/lib-dem-calculations-100000/
Are people unaware that Jewish groups used to use terrorist tactics? Did that justify antisemitism? Of course not.
Can people really be ignorant that there were periods in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when there was popular agitation in this country against Jews because the areas where Jewish migrants had settled seemed alien and "other"? Was antisemitism understandable or excusable then?
The answer from today's apologists for anti-Muslim prejudice today is a resounding "Yes".
That fools no one with half a brain.
Can't help feeling pleased about this. Maybe London journos will write a bit more about the shocking state of Northern transport systems.
Your argument is so stupid that it makes Theresa May look like Einstein.
That would have required assent from the Ukraine.
Russia invaded, but I don't regard the invasion as any great injustice.
If the population of the Crimea did not by and large want to join Russia, there would be an insurgency in response to the invasion (as there is in some parts of Russia).
George Osborne gave you the Northern Powerhouse so everything must be perfect
The jury should hang their heads in shame .
It would of course be grossly unfair on all those law-abiding uninvolved in terrorism Jews.
https://twitter.com/seanjonesqc/status/1103990297179107328
The problem is people who think violence furthers their cause, and people who think they should be exempt from British norms on social values while living in Britain.
The problem of integration is exacerbated by those on the reactionary Left, those who for example were over the moon at Catholic adoption agencies being shut down because of anti-homophobic legislation, being completely silent when other groups wish to treat women and gays as second-class citizens against the laws and norms of the country in which they live.
It's why nations tend to prefer to go for historical hinterlands (At least first) in their invasions, and why invading somewhere with no cultural or historical affiliation to any hinterland is less likely to succeed unless you can convince the natives of a change of identity or get mass immigration in...
If the population is more satisfied with the invader than the original host nation, should the original invader then be expelled ?
Also, how far back do you go