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.
I reckon a lengthy stint as Home Secretary would make most anybody a xenophobe, in the sense that you really are having to deal with some of the worst people imaginable. A very good friend of mine is very right on, but in her capacity as an immigration tribunal judge she occasionally wishes she had the ability to smite, such are some of the scummy people she is asked to sit in judgment on. And these aren't even the ones trying to blow us up....
I dare say that if asked, Theresa May would say the Home Secretary is the one in possession of a much fuller data set on the risks we are exposed to by letting Johnny Foreigner live amongst us. She doesn't see much milk of human kindness, yet is expected to dispense it by those whose disposition is always to see the best in people.
Interesting - this notion was picked up this very morning by that left-wing commie rag, City AM:
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.
You seem to struggle with reading comprehension.
The more people spell out the basis of anti-Muslim prejudice, the better, as I said. I think people will understand what you've said very 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 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.
Okay, next time I do something bad I'll say it was in the name of all brown-eyed people. Presumably any ensuing discrimination against brown-eyed people would be unfair, but not baseless.
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.
1. You do not win arguments by calling your opponent stupid.
2. Intelligent people do not need to have point 1. explained to 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.
That’s a very very dangerous philosophy you are espousing
I believe, for example, 27% of Estonia’s population is ethnically Russian and they are concentrated near the Russian border.
Should Russia have the right to occupy that land to further the cry of ethnic-nationalism?
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?
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.
You seem to struggle with reading comprehension.
The more people spell out the basis of anti-Muslim prejudice, the better, as I said. I think people will understand what you've said very well.
You're arguing against points of view that nobody in this thread is expressing.
It's worth noting that Remainers are heavily downweighted in that poll to get them to 48% of the sample. If in fact what is happening is false recall, Labour may be doing substantially better, given their much better showing with Remainers.
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?
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.
You seem to struggle with reading comprehension.
The more people spell out the basis of anti-Muslim prejudice, the better, as I said. I think people will understand what you've said very well.
You're arguing against points of view that nobody in this thread is expressing.
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.
Why should they?
If they are a commercial organisation they should behave commercially. If they are funded by levy they should have a different remit
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 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.
Okay, next time I do something bad I'll say it was in the name of all brown-eyed people. Presumably any ensuing discrimination against brown-eyed people would be unfair, but not baseless.
If some brown-eyed people thought that the non-brown eyed should be killed, or subjugated, then that would be correct.
It's worth noting that Remainers are heavily downweighted in that poll to get them to 48% of the sample. If in fact what is happening is false recall, Labour may be doing substantially better, given their much better showing with Remainers.
It's worth noting that Remainers are heavily downweighted in that poll to get them to 48% of the sample. If in fact what is happening is false recall, Labour may be doing substantially better, given their much better showing with Remainers.
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 questsly 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.
Okay, next time I do something bad I'll say it was in the name of all brown-eyed people. Presumably any ensuing discrimination against brown-eyed people would be unfair, but not baseless.
It's worth noting that Remainers are heavily downweighted in that poll to get them to 48% of the sample. If in fact what is happening is false recall, Labour may be doing substantially better, given their much better showing with Remainers.
Could be, although older and Conservative voters are also heavily downweighted
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.
1. You do not win arguments by calling your opponent stupid.
I have no thought that I'm going to "win an argument" here against anti-Muslim prejudice. There's far too much of it about, and obviously far too many people here feel comfortable with it to think clearly about what they're saying. But there's a certain satisfaction in pointing out the sheer bone-headed stupidity of arguments like the one above.
Those figures see May's Tories have almost exactly the same lead over Labour Blair's New Labour had over the Tories in 2001 when Blair won his second landslide. Corbyn is now in Hague territory if correct
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.
The error came well before he took off that day, but yes he obviously thought he would get away with it.
As @Richard_Nabavi says below Gross Negligence is a high bar, but this must have been bloody close given that it was a public display. He didn't even crash on the field.
It's a bit like watching this: youtube.com/watch?v=U4ZjzC_amRg and thinking of the pilot saying over and over in his head that he doesn't need to go around, shes a forgiving old bird and it'll sort itself out.
Those figures see May's Tories have almost exactly the same lead over Labour Blair's New Labour had over the Tories in 2001 when Blair won his second landslide. Corbyn is now in Hague territory if correct
18% looks massively high for Green-Tigger-UKIP-other though.
It's worth noting that Remainers are heavily downweighted in that poll to get them to 48% of the sample. If in fact what is happening is false recall, Labour may be doing substantially better, given their much better showing with Remainers.
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
Either it is changed or there’s no deal
Whereby no deal = revocation.
That is an option which the U.K. government has so far rejected
And why Grieve meeting with the French to bring it about is do problematic
It's worth noting that Remainers are heavily downweighted in that poll to get them to 48% of the sample. If in fact what is happening is false recall, Labour may be doing substantially better, given their much better showing with Remainers.
Is that unusual in the YouGov panel, though? I don't know the answer, but I wouldn't be too surprised if to get a representative sample they always have to downweight Remainers.
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.
1. You do not win arguments by calling your opponent stupid.
I have no thought that I'm going to "win an argument" here against anti-Muslim prejudice. There's far too much of it about, and obviously far too many people here feel comfortable with it to think clearly about what they're saying. But there's a certain satisfaction in pointing out the sheer bone-headed stupidity of arguments like the one above.
In order to win an argument, you have to make one.
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.
According to the four tests, I can see only the barest room for doubt/wiggle room on the last, as there is still uncertainty on its precise boundaries:
the defendant owed a duty to the deceased to take care;
the defendant breached this duty;
the breach caused the death of the deceased; and
the defendant's negligence was gross, that is, it showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime and deserve punishment.
Which is why motorists usually face a charge of causing death by dangerous driving.
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.
1. You do not win arguments by calling your opponent stupid.
I have no thought that I'm going to "win an argument" here against anti-Muslim prejudice. There's far too much of it about, and obviously far too many people here feel comfortable with it to think clearly about what they're saying. But there's a certain satisfaction in pointing out the sheer bone-headed stupidity of arguments like the one above.
LOL x 2
We're all tired and emotional and not thinking straight. Do you think we're all soft-headed lasses or something, Mr Treat Everyone With Respect?
It's worth noting that Remainers are heavily downweighted in that poll to get them to 48% of the sample. If in fact what is happening is false recall, Labour may be doing substantially better, given their much better showing with Remainers.
Is that unusual in the YouGov panel, though? I don't know the answer, but I wouldn't be too surprised if to get a representative sample they always have to downweight Remainers.
Mr. HYUFD, assuming the polling is correct. Recent evidence would suggest taking them with a pinch of salt (not least because May is the worst campaigner since John).
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.
Okay, next time I do something bad I'll say it was in the name of all brown-eyed people. Presumably any ensuing discrimination against brown-eyed people would be unfair, but not baseless.
If some brown-eyed people thought that the non-brown eyed should be killed, or subjugated, then that would be correct.
See what I mean about the sheer bone-headed stupidity of the arguments attempting to justify racial or religious prejudice on the basis of the actions of particular members of races or religions?
It's worth noting that Remainers are heavily downweighted in that poll to get them to 48% of the sample. If in fact what is happening is false recall, Labour may be doing substantially better, given their much better showing with Remainers.
Is that unusual in the YouGov panel, though? I don't know the answer, but I wouldn't be too surprised if to get a representative sample they always have to downweight Remainers.
You'd think it would be the reverse, since they've upweighted younger people, and downweighted older respondents.
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.
1. You do not win arguments by calling your opponent stupid.
I have no thought that I'm going to "win an argument" here against anti-Muslim prejudice. There's far too much of it about, and obviously far too many people here feel comfortable with it to think clearly about what they're saying. But there's a certain satisfaction in pointing out the sheer bone-headed stupidity of arguments like the one above.
LOL x 2
We're all tired and emotional and not thinking straight. Do you think we're all soft-headed lasses or something, Mr Treat Everyone With Respect?
Is treating people with respect now a concept to be derided?
The occupation of Crimea by Putin is completely illegal, irrespective of the 1954 transfer, not least because the "Russian" population was only a majority because the entire surviving indigenous Crimean Tatar population of the peninsula, having lost 100,000 starved to death by the Soviets in the 1920s, were deported to Siberia in 1944.
A particularly terrible fate, since so few survived or were permitted to return after 1967. The Tatars, it should be noted, support Ukraine in this struggle.
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.
According to the four tests, I can see only the barest room for doubt/wiggle room on the last, as there is still debate on its precise boundaries:
the defendant owed a duty to the deceased to take care;
the defendant breached this duty;
the breach caused the death of the deceased; and
the defendant's negligence was gross, that is, it showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime and deserve punishment.
On the facts as I understand them I think that the jury very likely felt that the prosecution had failed to make out the final limb of the above. He would, in my view, almost certainly be negligent to a civil standard but criminal is hard to make out.
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.
1. You do not win arguments by calling your opponent stupid.
I have no thought that I'm going to "win an argument" here against anti-Muslim prejudice. There's far too much of it about, and obviously far too many people here feel comfortable with it to think clearly about what they're saying. But there's a certain satisfaction in pointing out the sheer bone-headed stupidity of arguments like the one above.
LOL x 2
We're all tired and emotional and not thinking straight. Do you think we're all soft-headed lasses or something, Mr Treat Everyone With Respect?
Is treating people with respect now a concept to be derided?
Fantastic - you uphold the principle of treating people with respect moments after calling posters on here stupid and unable to think clearly.
Those figures see May's Tories have almost exactly the same lead over Labour Blair's New Labour had over the Tories in 2001 when Blair won his second landslide. Corbyn is now in Hague territory if correct
18% looks massively high for Green-Tigger-UKIP-other though.
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.
Okay, next time I do something bad I'll say it was in the name of all brown-eyed people. Presumably any ensuing discrimination against brown-eyed people would be unfair, but not baseless.
If some brown-eyed people thought that the non-brown eyed should be killed, or subjugated, then that would be correct.
See what I mean about the sheer bone-headed stupidity of the arguments attempting to justify racial or religious prejudice on the basis of the actions of particular members of races or religions?
Those figures see May's Tories have almost exactly the same lead over Labour Blair's New Labour had over the Tories in 2001 when Blair won his second landslide. Corbyn is now in Hague territory if correct
18% looks massively high for Green-Tigger-UKIP-other though.
Mr. HYUFD, assuming the polling is correct. Recent evidence would suggest taking them with a pinch of salt (not least because May is the worst campaigner since John).
Though May still got over 40% in 2017 and is just holding that vote, most of the shift seems to be from Labour to the LDs and Others
Those figures see May's Tories have almost exactly the same lead over Labour Blair's New Labour had over the Tories in 2001 when Blair won his second landslide. Corbyn is now in Hague territory if correct
18% looks massively high for Green-Tigger-UKIP-other though.
Though Tigger was on 14% a few weeks ago
Are the Tiggers going to run 500 (I expect they won't bother for instance in my constituency of Bassetlaw) odd candidates though ?
Oh hmm, those figures are without a fully fledged Tigger party. Looks like Labour are in the shit then.
Mr. HYUFD, assuming the polling is correct. Recent evidence would suggest taking them with a pinch of salt (not least because May is the worst campaigner since John).
Though May still got over 40% in 2017 and is just holding that vote, most of the shift seems to be from Labour to the LDs and 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.
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?
Maybe if the people of Crimea had elected a party backing a plebiscite, you know how like the SNP won elections in Scotland to trigger theirs.
Anything after a military occupation simply doesn't count.
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.
According to the four tests, I can see only the barest room for doubt/wiggle room on the last, as there is still debate on its precise boundaries:
the defendant owed a duty to the deceased to take care;
the defendant breached this duty;
the breach caused the death of the deceased; and
the defendant's negligence was gross, that is, it showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime and deserve punishment.
On the facts as I understand them I think that the jury very likely felt that the prosecution had failed to make out the final limb of the above. He would, in my view, almost certainly be negligent to a civil standard but criminal is hard to make out.
That sounds about right.
Inquests and a civil case to come. As you say, the latter has a lower burden of proof.
There are 2 billion souls scattered throughout this world who are Muslim. Anybody who makes generalized assumptions about them as individuals is up a gum tree.
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.
1. You do not win arguments by calling your opponent stupid.
I have no thought that I'm going to "win an argument" here against anti-Muslim prejudice. There's far too much of it about, and obviously far too many people here feel comfortable with it to think clearly about what they're saying. But there's a certain satisfaction in pointing out the sheer bone-headed stupidity of arguments like the one above.
LOL x 2
We're all tired and emotional and not thinking straight. Do you think we're all soft-headed lasses or something, Mr Treat Everyone With Respect?
Is treating people with respect now a concept to be derided?
Fantastic - you uphold the principle of treating people with respect moments after calling posters on here stupid and unable to think clearly.
What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
Those figures see May's Tories have almost exactly the same lead over Labour Blair's New Labour had over the Tories in 2001 when Blair won his second landslide. Corbyn is now in Hague territory if correct
18% looks massively high for Green-Tigger-UKIP-other though.
Though Tigger was on 14% a few weeks ago
Are the Tiggers going to run 500 (I expect they won't bother for instance in my constituency of Bassetlaw) odd candidates though ?
Oh hmm, those figures are without a fully fledged Tigger party. Looks like Labour are in the shit then.
It's too early to say that Labour are in trouble. The Conservative support looks to me to be very fragile; at the moment, it includes those happy with No Deal and those utterly horrified by the prospect of No Deal. It's hard to see how the party can navigate through the next few weeks without a rupture between those two parts of the coalition (and that's even without factoring in the likelihood that those currently supporting No Deal will in practice be horrified by the reality).
Those figures see May's Tories have almost exactly the same lead over Labour Blair's New Labour had over the Tories in 2001 when Blair won his second landslide. Corbyn is now in Hague territory if correct
18% looks massively high for Green-Tigger-UKIP-other though.
What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
Should all fascists be treated with respect despite the actions of other fascists?
Is opposing fascists or being concerned about fascists wrong because the actions of all fascists aren't the same?
Those figures see May's Tories have almost exactly the same lead over Labour Blair's New Labour had over the Tories in 2001 when Blair won his second landslide. Corbyn is now in Hague territory if correct
18% looks massively high for Green-Tigger-UKIP-other though.
Though Tigger was on 14% a few weeks ago
Are the Tiggers going to run 500 (I expect they won't bother for instance in my constituency of Bassetlaw) odd candidates though ?
Oh hmm, those figures are without a fully fledged Tigger party. Looks like Labour are in the shit then.
It's too early to say that Labour are in trouble. The Conservative support looks to me to be very fragile; at the moment, it includes those happy with No Deal and those utterly horrified by the prospect of No Deal. It's hard to see how the party can navigate through the next few weeks without a rupture between those two parts of the coalition (and that's even without factoring in the likelihood that those currently supporting No Deal will in practice be horrified by the reality).
I hear a group that does research into europe is looking into how to best keep the Tory vote unified.
There are 2 billion souls scattered throughout this world who are Muslim. Anybody who makes generalized assumptions about them as individuals is up a gum tree.
People make generalized assumptions all the time. It's a natural cognitive function that is generally useful and efficient - but can sometimes lead us astray.
I don't think that pointing out where it is happening is to excuse the result where that is erroneous, but to understand why it happens. Otherwise you are reduced to denouncing people for being bad, which is not very constructive.
Those figures see May's Tories have almost exactly the same lead over Labour Blair's New Labour had over the Tories in 2001 when Blair won his second landslide. Corbyn is now in Hague territory if correct
18% looks massively high for Green-Tigger-UKIP-other though.
Though Tigger was on 14% a few weeks ago
Are the Tiggers going to run 500 (I expect they won't bother for instance in my constituency of Bassetlaw) odd candidates though ?
Oh hmm, those figures are without a fully fledged Tigger party. Looks like Labour are in the shit then.
It's too early to say that Labour are in trouble. The Conservative support looks to me to be very fragile; at the moment, it includes those happy with No Deal and those utterly horrified by the prospect of No Deal. It's hard to see how the party can navigate through the next few weeks without a rupture between those two parts of the coalition (and that's even without factoring in the likelihood that those currently supporting No Deal will in practice be horrified by the reality).
Plus, as OGH keeps reminding us, leadership ratings are very important. Corbyn wont be facing May unless the GE is this year.
Those figures see May's Tories have almost exactly the same lead over Labour Blair's New Labour had over the Tories in 2001 when Blair won his second landslide. Corbyn is now in Hague territory if correct
18% looks massively high for Green-Tigger-UKIP-other though.
Though Tigger was on 14% a few weeks ago
They didn't ask about TIG by name this time.
Yes I realise this now, this makes the issue worse for Labour.
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.
1. You do not win arguments by calling your opponent stupid.
I have no thought that I'm going to "win an argument" here against anti-Muslim prejudice. There's far too much of it about, and obviously far too many people here feel comfortable with it to think clearly about what they're saying. But there's a certain satisfaction in pointing out the sheer bone-headed stupidity of arguments like the one above.
LOL x 2
We're all tired and emotional and not thinking straight. Do you think we're all soft-headed lasses or something, Mr Treat Everyone With Respect?
Is treating people with respect now a concept to be derided?
Fantastic - you uphold the principle of treating people with respect moments after calling posters on here stupid and unable to think clearly.
What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
People are not making arguments to justify racial or religious prejudice.
What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
Should all fascists be treated with respect despite the actions of other fascists?
Is opposing fascists or being concerned about fascists wrong because the actions of all fascists aren't the same?
Many thanks. The more bone-headedly stupid arguments people post here in favour of prejudice against Muslims, the better.
Mr. Stereotomy, and it's been largely out of the news. Could use some more defections.
Those would be good for a short-term boost, but in the longer term, winning news coverage without any apparent guiding principles or the ability to agree on radical, eye-catching policies is going to be an ongoing struggle for them.
It's worth noting that Remainers are heavily downweighted in that poll to get them to 48% of the sample. If in fact what is happening is false recall, Labour may be doing substantially better, given their much better showing with Remainers.
The heavy down-weighting of Remain voters in their sample has been a feature of their polls for a long time.
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.
In these cases (reasonably clear facts but the law requires an interpretation of motive or negligence), I'd be amazed if the defendant's identity and status doesn't play a bigger role in a jury's collective mind than a strict legalistic consideration.
Or to put it another way, if I was a former RAF/BA pilot on a manslaughter charge for crashing my plane, I'd definitely try a not guilty plea.
It's worth noting that Remainers are heavily downweighted in that poll to get them to 48% of the sample. If in fact what is happening is false recall, Labour may be doing substantially better, given their much better showing with Remainers.
The heavy down-weighting of Remain voters in their sample has been a feature of their polls for a long time.
The Remain vote was "downweighted" to 48% in the referendum - by 17+ million turning out to vote leave.
Those figures see May's Tories have almost exactly the same lead over Labour Blair's New Labour had over the Tories in 2001 when Blair won his second landslide. Corbyn is now in Hague territory if correct
18% looks massively high for Green-Tigger-UKIP-other though.
Though Tigger was on 14% a few weeks ago
Are the Tiggers going to run 500 (I expect they won't bother for instance in my constituency of Bassetlaw) odd candidates though ?
Oh hmm, those figures are without a fully fledged Tigger party. Looks like Labour are in the shit then.
It's worth noting that Remainers are heavily downweighted in that poll to get them to 48% of the sample. If in fact what is happening is false recall, Labour may be doing substantially better, given their much better showing with Remainers.
The heavy down-weighting of Remain voters in their sample has been a feature of their polls for a long time.
I feel we're at risk of straying into "unskewing" territory here
"That is because for many in Labour’s far-Left there are only two battles worth fighting. One is against the class enemy represented by the Tories; the other, internationally, is the war against the imperialist Americans and their allies, whose principal running dog is, of course, Israel."
"And unfortunately, by their behaviour, the Labour leadership seems to have bought this barrel-load of nonsense completely. The lunatics have taken over the asylum and – whatever they think they are doing – are behaving like anti-Semites.
I am sure any defence of the EHRC’s action in starting an investigation will become part of a fresh conspiracy theory. It happens that both the chair and chief executive of the EHRC are Jewish. The Twitter-sphere is already in overdrive and last night Labour’s National Executive Committee was calling for the EHRC to be abolished!"
"That is because for many in Labour’s far-Left there are only two battles worth fighting. One is against the class enemy represented by the Tories; the other, internationally, is the war against the imperialist Americans and their allies, whose principal running dog is, of course, Israel."
"And unfortunately, by their behaviour, the Labour leadership seems to have bought this barrel-load of nonsense completely. The lunatics have taken over the asylum and – whatever they think they are doing – are behaving like anti-Semites.
I am sure any defence of the EHRC’s action in starting an investigation will become part of a fresh conspiracy theory. It happens that both the chair and chief executive of the EHRC are Jewish. The Twitter-sphere is already in overdrive and last night Labour’s National Executive Committee was calling for the EHRC to be abolished!"
They called for the EHRC to be abolished?
One of the NEC members called for it yesterday, not the NEC as a whole. Still unacceptable, though.
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.
1. You do not win arguments by calling your opponent stupid.
I have no thought that I'm going to "win an argument" here against anti-Muslim prejudice. There's far too much of it about, and obviously far too many people here feel comfortable with it to think clearly about what they're saying. But there's a certain satisfaction in pointing out the sheer bone-headed stupidity of arguments like the one above.
LOL x 2
We're all tired and emotional and not thinking straight. Do you think we're all soft-headed lasses or something, Mr Treat Everyone With Respect?
Is treating people with respect now a concept to be derided?
Fantastic - you uphold the principle of treating people with respect moments after calling posters on here stupid and unable to think clearly.
What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
People are not making arguments to justify racial or religious prejudice.
The specific argument we're discussing is your comment "Are there British Jews who blow up their fellow citizens, and claim to be acting in the name of their religion?"
That certainly seemed to imply that anti-Muslim prejudice was somehow more acceptable that antisemitism.
But if you accept that's not the case I'm only too pleased to hear it.
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.
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.
.
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.
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?
Maybe if the people of Crimea had elected a party backing a plebiscite, you know how like the SNP won elections in Scotland to trigger theirs.
Anything after a military occupation simply doesn't count.
There was a plebiscite in Crimea in 1991, held under the rules recognised in international law and it voted both to be part of Ukraine and to be independent of Russia. The crazy thing about the invasion of Crimea is that with a bit of patience Putin probably could have helped build an indy movement and win Crimea legitimately - now he has a big headache trying to feed and maintain a disgruntled population who are not being showered with the goodies they were promised - quelle surprise
"That is because for many in Labour’s far-Left there are only two battles worth fighting. One is against the class enemy represented by the Tories; the other, internationally, is the war against the imperialist Americans and their allies, whose principal running dog is, of course, Israel."
"And unfortunately, by their behaviour, the Labour leadership seems to have bought this barrel-load of nonsense completely. The lunatics have taken over the asylum and – whatever they think they are doing – are behaving like anti-Semites.
I am sure any defence of the EHRC’s action in starting an investigation will become part of a fresh conspiracy theory. It happens that both the chair and chief executive of the EHRC are Jewish. The Twitter-sphere is already in overdrive and last night Labour’s National Executive Committee was calling for the EHRC to be abolished!"
May says if you don't pass my deal there will be no Brexit.
I like to imagine that she starts the sentence not having yet decided whether she's going to threaten no deal or no brexit this time, and only decides at the last moment. Maybe she glances at her watch and picks based on whether the second hand is on an odd or even number.
"That is because for many in Labour’s far-Left there are only two battles worth fighting. One is against the class enemy represented by the Tories; the other, internationally, is the war against the imperialist Americans and their allies, whose principal running dog is, of course, Israel."
"And unfortunately, by their behaviour, the Labour leadership seems to have bought this barrel-load of nonsense completely. The lunatics have taken over the asylum and – whatever they think they are doing – are behaving like anti-Semites.
I am sure any defence of the EHRC’s action in starting an investigation will become part of a fresh conspiracy theory. It happens that both the chair and chief executive of the EHRC are Jewish. The Twitter-sphere is already in overdrive and last night Labour’s National Executive Committee was calling for the EHRC to be abolished!"
They called for the EHRC to be abolished?
One member did. Not sure about the NEC as whole.
That's why I was asking as that would surely have been big news
What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
Chris if I may say you are making the classic mistake of fixing on your conclusion first and then shaping the experiment to justify that conclusion.
Back in the mists of time in this thread it was observed that if you have a group of people (brown eyed, fair haired, Jews, Muslims - it works with each of these groups) who are *in the name of that group* committing terrorist acts then it is not surprising that some people will take against every member of that group.
Is it justified? No of course not because there are plenty of fair-haired people who wouldn't dream of committing terrorist acts and wholly disassociate themselves from the terrorists. But the fact remains that those terrorists are committing their terrorists acts globally in the name of fair-haired people. So discrimination against fair-haired people is not justified. Nor, however, is it surprising.
"That is because for many in Labour’s far-Left there are only two battles worth fighting. One is against the class enemy represented by the Tories; the other, internationally, is the war against the imperialist Americans and their allies, whose principal running dog is, of course, Israel."
"And unfortunately, by their behaviour, the Labour leadership seems to have bought this barrel-load of nonsense completely. The lunatics have taken over the asylum and – whatever they think they are doing – are behaving like anti-Semites.
I am sure any defence of the EHRC’s action in starting an investigation will become part of a fresh conspiracy theory. It happens that both the chair and chief executive of the EHRC are Jewish. The Twitter-sphere is already in overdrive and last night Labour’s National Executive Committee was calling for the EHRC to be abolished!"
They called for the EHRC to be abolished?
One member did. Not sure about the NEC as whole.
That's why I was asking as that would surely have been big news
People make generalized assumptions all the time. It's a natural cognitive function that is generally useful and efficient - but can sometimes lead us astray.
I don't think that pointing out where it is happening is to excuse the result where that is erroneous, but to understand why it happens. Otherwise you are reduced to denouncing people for being bad, which is not very constructive.
Denouncing people for being bad, when they are bad, and otherwise refraining from making that judgment is not something you can be reduced to - it is something you ought to aspire to.
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 questsly 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.
Okay, next time I do something bad I'll say it was in the name of all brown-eyed people. Presumably any ensuing discrimination against brown-eyed people would be unfair, but not baseless.
What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
Should all fascists be treated with respect despite the actions of other fascists?
Is opposing fascists or being concerned about fascists wrong because the actions of all fascists aren't the same?
Many thanks. The more bone-headedly stupid arguments people post here in favour of prejudice against Muslims, the better.
I didn't make an argument I asked you a question. Two questions actually. You failed to answer them, so I will repeat them.
Should all fascists be treated with respect despite the actions of other fascists?
Is opposing fascists or being concerned about fascists wrong because the actions of all fascists aren't the same?
The proposed F1 bonus point rule for fastest lap is actually interesting: “One point will be awarded to the driver who achieved the fastest lap of the race and to the constructor whose car they were driving, providing that the lap time was achieved without incurring a penalty and the driver was in the top 10 positions of the final race classification,”
The top 10 finish proviso eliminates artificial banzai laps by those out of contention, and it introduces a nice element of strategic calculation between closely matched drivers in the top 10 (and is not worth compromisng a podium place for).
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 questsly 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.
Okay, next time I do something bad I'll say it was in the name of all brown-eyed people. Presumably any ensuing discrimination against brown-eyed people would be unfair, but not baseless.
What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
Chris if I may say you are making the classic mistake of fixing on your conclusion first and then shaping the experiment to justify that conclusion.
Back in the mists of time in this thread it was observed that if you have a group of people (brown eyed, fair haired, Jews, Muslims - it works with each of these groups) who are *in the name of that group* committing terrorist acts then it is not surprising that some people will take against every member of that group.
Is it justified? No of course not because there are plenty of fair-haired people who wouldn't dream of committing terrorist acts and wholly disassociate themselves from the terrorists. But the fact remains that those terrorists are committing their terrorists acts globally in the name of fair-haired people. So discrimination against fair-haired people is not justified. Nor, however, is it surprising.
The key difference is that being fair-haired isn't a belief system either. People are committing violence inspired by their beliefs, in the name of their beliefs, not in the name of a trait they were born with. Beliefs and traits are not the same thing.
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.
1. You do not win arguments by calling your opponent stupid.
I have no thought that I'm going to "win an argument" here against anti-Muslim prejudice. There's far too much of it about, and obviously far too many people here feel comfortable with it to think clearly about what they're saying. But there's a certain satisfaction in pointing out the sheer bone-headed stupidity of arguments like the one above.
LOL x 2
We're all tired and emotional and not thinking straight. Do you think we're all soft-headed lasses or something, Mr Treat Everyone With Respect?
Is treating people with respect now a concept to be derided?
Fantastic - you uphold the principle of treating people with respect moments after calling posters on here stupid and unable to think clearly.
You do have to admit though that he was pretty accurate in many cases.
It's worth noting that Remainers are heavily downweighted in that poll to get them to 48% of the sample. If in fact what is happening is false recall, Labour may be doing substantially better, given their much better showing with Remainers.
The heavy down-weighting of Remain voters in their sample has been a feature of their polls for a long time.
I feel we're at risk of straying into "unskewing" territory here
I'm not doubting the poll any more than any other (all of them have problems of one kind or another and no single poll should be taken very seriously). I'm certainly not going to be unskewing it.
I note merely that it is possibly overstating the Conservative lead for a particular reason.
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 ?
Also, how far back do you go
My family was kicked out of Ireland after 800 years.
The Irish government has been spent the last couple of years actively marketing to us to try and persuade us to return...
The BBC director general, Tony Hall, has mocked the size of Netflix’s viewing figures, claiming only seven million Britons watched The Crown despite the enormous media buzz around the big-budget show.
The BBC boss said high-profile dramas such as Luther and Bodyguard reached larger audiences with a smaller budget on the public broadcaster than expensive Netflix shows.
"That is because for many in Labour’s far-Left there are only two battles worth fighting. One is against the class enemy represented by the Tories; the other, internationally, is the war against the imperialist Americans and their allies, whose principal running dog is, of course, Israel."
"And unfortunately, by their behaviour, the Labour leadership seems to have bought this barrel-load of nonsense completely. The lunatics have taken over the asylum and – whatever they think they are doing – are behaving like anti-Semites.
I am sure any defence of the EHRC’s action in starting an investigation will become part of a fresh conspiracy theory. It happens that both the chair and chief executive of the EHRC are Jewish. The Twitter-sphere is already in overdrive and last night Labour’s National Executive Committee was calling for the EHRC to be abolished!"
They called for the EHRC to be abolished?
One member did. Not sure about the NEC as whole.
That's why I was asking as that would surely have been big news
People make generalized assumptions all the time. It's a natural cognitive function that is generally useful and efficient - but can sometimes lead us astray.
I don't think that pointing out where it is happening is to excuse the result where that is erroneous, but to understand why it happens. Otherwise you are reduced to denouncing people for being bad, which is not very constructive.
Denouncing people for being bad, when they are bad, and otherwise refraining from making that judgment is not something you can be reduced to - it is something you ought to aspire to.
The desirable endpoint is not to feel righteous about identifying other people as bad, but to reduce the incidence of bad things occurring.
I think that understanding why a person did a bad thing is not likely to be productive than denouncing that person as bad for doing that bad thing. It's much easier to convince someone to try to change if you don't make them so defensive in the first place.
Comments
A couple of hours is hardly unusual, but years... ?
http://www.cityam.com/274358/theresa-may-home-secretary-dressed-up-prime-minister
2. Intelligent people do not need to have point 1. explained to them.
I believe, for example, 27% of Estonia’s population is ethnically Russian and they are concentrated near the Russian border.
Should Russia have the right to occupy that land to further the cry of ethnic-nationalism?
That’s the policy that gave us the Sudetenland
If they are a commercial organisation they should behave commercially. If they are funded by levy they should have a different remit
As @Richard_Nabavi says below Gross Negligence is a high bar, but this must have been bloody close given that it was a public display. He didn't even crash on the field.
It's a bit like watching this:
youtube.com/watch?v=U4ZjzC_amRg
and thinking of the pilot saying over and over in his head that he doesn't need to go around, shes a forgiving old bird and it'll sort itself out.
And why Grieve meeting with the French to bring it about is do problematic
the defendant owed a duty to the deceased to take care;
the defendant breached this duty;
the breach caused the death of the deceased; and
the defendant's negligence was gross, that is, it showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime and deserve punishment.
Which is why motorists usually face a charge of causing death by dangerous driving.
We're all tired and emotional and not thinking straight. Do you think we're all soft-headed lasses or something, Mr Treat Everyone With Respect?
Tis a funny old world.
A particularly terrible fate, since so few survived or were permitted to return after 1967. The Tatars, it should be noted, support Ukraine in this struggle.
SNP/Plaid: 5 (unch)
UKIP: 3 (-2)
Green 4 (unch)
Brexit Party: 3 (+1)
Other: 3 (unch)
Oh hmm, those figures are without a fully fledged Tigger party. Looks like Labour are in the shit then.
Thanks for the breakdown @Harris_Tweed
Anything after a military occupation simply doesn't count.
Inquests and a civil case to come. As you say, the latter has a lower burden of proof.
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
Is opposing fascists or being concerned about fascists wrong because the actions of all fascists aren't the same?
I don't think that pointing out where it is happening is to excuse the result where that is erroneous, but to understand why it happens. Otherwise you are reduced to denouncing people for being bad, which is not very constructive.
How will voters rate Boris?
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1103934776539406338
Or to put it another way, if I was a former RAF/BA pilot on a manslaughter charge for crashing my plane, I'd definitely try a not guilty plea.
Trevor Phillips
"That is because for many in Labour’s far-Left there are only two battles worth fighting. One is against the class enemy represented by the Tories; the other, internationally, is the war against the imperialist Americans and their allies, whose principal running dog is, of course, Israel."
"And unfortunately, by their behaviour, the Labour leadership seems to have bought this barrel-load of nonsense completely. The lunatics have taken over the asylum and – whatever they think they are doing – are behaving like anti-Semites.
I am sure any defence of the EHRC’s action in starting an investigation will become part of a fresh conspiracy theory. It happens that both the chair and chief executive of the EHRC are Jewish. The Twitter-sphere is already in overdrive and last night Labour’s National Executive Committee was calling for the EHRC to be abolished!"
They called for the EHRC to be abolished?
Only one tiny problem...
That certainly seemed to imply that anti-Muslim prejudice was somehow more acceptable that antisemitism.
But if you accept that's not the case I'm only too pleased to hear it.
https://twitter.com/NickCohen4/status/1103702025425043456
Who was this numpty in any case?
Back in the mists of time in this thread it was observed that if you have a group of people (brown eyed, fair haired, Jews, Muslims - it works with each of these groups) who are *in the name of that group* committing terrorist acts then it is not surprising that some people will take against every member of that group.
Is it justified? No of course not because there are plenty of fair-haired people who wouldn't dream of committing terrorist acts and wholly disassociate themselves from the terrorists. But the fact remains that those terrorists are committing their terrorists acts globally in the name of fair-haired people. So discrimination against fair-haired people is not justified. Nor, however, is it surprising.
https://twitter.com/hudaelmi_/status/1103690149211373568
To be fair, he has been very busy with another issue.
Should all fascists be treated with respect despite the actions of other fascists?
Is opposing fascists or being concerned about fascists wrong because the actions of all fascists aren't the same?
“One point will be awarded to the driver who achieved the fastest lap of the race and to the constructor whose car they were driving, providing that the lap time was achieved without incurring a penalty and the driver was in the top 10 positions of the final race classification,”
The top 10 finish proviso eliminates artificial banzai laps by those out of contention, and it introduces a nice element of strategic calculation between closely matched drivers in the top 10 (and is not worth compromisng a podium place for).
I note merely that it is possibly overstating the Conservative lead for a particular reason.
The Irish government has been spent the last couple of years actively marketing to us to try and persuade us to return...
The BBC boss said high-profile dramas such as Luther and Bodyguard reached larger audiences with a smaller budget on the public broadcaster than expensive Netflix shows.
https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2019/mar/07/bbc-boss-mocks-netflixs-the-crown-viewing-figures
They just don’t get it...and bodyguard is a great example...cos guess who has the rights to show it worldwide...hint it ain’t the bbc.
https://www.independent.co.uk/author/huda-elmi
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/momentum/pages/92/attachments/original/1521668008/Huda_Elmi_CLP_(1)_(1).pdf?1521668008
Another one who describes themselves as a tireless anti racism campaigner
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB792GB792&lei=TGeCXMm9Hv6d1fAPsqWuiAI&q=huda elmi israel&ved=2ahUKEwjviYbmzPLgAhUDx4UKHRp8BuwQsKwBKAB6BAgAEAE
I think that understanding why a person did a bad thing is not likely to be productive than denouncing that person as bad for doing that bad thing. It's much easier to convince someone to try to change if you don't make them so defensive in the first place.