Yes, you commented that anti-Muslim prejudice had become normalised. Then you went on to say it wasn't surprising, and I commented that that in itself was an illustration of how it had become acceptable. I suggested you applied the test of substituting "Muslims" for "Jews".
Your response to that was the stuff we've seen over and over again, about Muslims being terrorists and Jews not being terrorists. Surely you could see that wasn't the point?
And of course I didn't accuse you of bigotry - I said that what you had written was an excuse for bigotry. Wasn't that amply borne out by the subsequent discussion?
And as for my "motives", what the hell do you think you know about them? Just say what you have to say, please.
I've no idea what your motives are, that's the point. In normal discourse you seem quite sensible, but you seem to have some problem with this topic being calmly discussed, and you wilfully misunderstand and misrepresent what I and others have said.
The other aspect is what people claim is “discrimination.”
For example it is possible to argue legitimately for integration not multiculturalism.
Someone on the right night argue that without integration you create the basis for alienation and disassociation and create an environment where terrorist can flourish. So it is rational and the right thing to do to encourage integration, possibly from first principles and possibly as a reaction to terrorism.
Someone on the left, however, might believe that the desire for integration represents extreme anti-Muslim prejudice because you are insisting they give up essential elements of their historical culture by, for example, insisting on equal rights for women and homosexuals.
TBF, the driver of Islamophobia is rarely a passionate desire to further the interests of women and homosexuals.
I do enjoy watching the eyeballs of some people start to spin as they perform the mental gymnastics required for them to support traditional British values (like tolerance for gay rights) or the rights of parents (Muslim ones) to dictate what their kids schools' teach.
Yes, you commented that anti-Muslim prejudice had become normalised. Then you went on to say it wasn't surprising, and I commented that that in itself was an illustration of how it had become acceptable. I suggested you applied the test of substituting "Muslims" for "Jews".
Your response to that was the stuff we've seen over and over again, about Muslims being terrorists and Jews not being terrorists. Surely you could see that wasn't the point?
And of course I didn't accuse you of bigotry - I said that what you had written was an excuse for bigotry. Wasn't that amply borne out by the subsequent discussion?
And as for my "motives", what the hell do you think you know about them? Just say what you have to say, please.
I've no idea what your motives are, that's the point. In normal discourse you seem quite sensible, but you seem to have some problem with this topic being calmly discussed, and you wilfully misunderstand and misrepresent what I and others have said.
Bradley may not be very good, but the reaction to her comments is absurdly overblown. As @David L says, these people need to get over themselves.
In general (and in another context), I'd agree, but NI Secretary is a role where you really do need to be careful how you choose your words. She just doesn't seem to be very good.
I wouldn't argue that she isn't useless, even lawyers have limits, but as I pointed out last week the idea that a cabinet minister should resign for merely being useless is a dangerous one indeed, especially to a cabinet (still!!) including Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, Mundell....
It is of course even more dangerous to a PM who has misplaced her majority.
Caught up with the Maybot speech. Yawn. No salesmanship, and no willingness to listen. Her defence of her deal seems tired and cliched; just going through the motions. And it's clear that Parliament is telling her to get lost on the idea that her deal is the only one in town. What a waste of a PM, when you think of the JAMs and the burning injustices she once railed against. Past her best-before date sadly.
One question: we're all talking about how many MPS will back her deal, but do we see any going the other way? Who voted for it before but no longer support it? Would be a good PR opportunity for an enterprising backencher, particularly on the remain side with the prize of indicative votes clearly in sight. Any names in the frame?
Bradley may not be very good, but the reaction to her comments is absurdly overblown. As @David L says, these people need to get over themselves.
In general (and in another context), I'd agree, but NI Secretary is a role where you really do need to be careful how you choose your words. She just doesn't seem to be very good.
I wouldn't argue that she isn't useless, even lawyers have limits, but as I pointed out last week the idea that a cabinet minister should resign for merely being useless is a dangerous one indeed, especially to a cabinet (still!!) including Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, Mundell....
It is of course even more dangerous to a PM who has misplaced her majority.
True. In any case, this little storm in a rock-pool is about to be engulfed by the tsunami of Brexit chaos.
Prejudice against Muslims is not irrational. It's understandable. Just as prejudice against the Jews is not irrational to Jeremy Corbyn and any like-minded lefty types.
I'd say that islamophobia among westerners is if anything more irrational than antisemitism on the pro-palestinian hard left because whilst half the world's jews live in Israel, only a tiny fraction of the world's muslims are involved in ISIS and the like.
But, bottom line for me, both are irrational and yet I do agree that they are at the same time understandable. Irrationality being perfectly understandable because people are irrational - look at Brexit.
Important and weighty as all this discussion of racism is, I think you guys might be missing Brexit collapsing in front of our eyes right now. Jeremy Hunt was blaming the EU this morning. And May has just warned that we might not get Brexit at all if her deal doesn't go through. (You know, the one that was less popular with parliament than Charles the First.)
We are not at the 59th minute of the 11th hour yet, nor shall we be for a bit yet. That is when we know.
Given she was saying this back in September: “I didn’t understand things like when elections are fought, for example, in Northern Ireland – people who are nationalists don’t vote for unionist parties and vice versa", her ignorance is utterly remarkable for a secretary of state, and it is now clear that she lacks either the will or the capacity to educate herself about her brief.
Soubry is correct.
May needs to carry the can for this appointment, which looks singularly uninspired....
FFS, is there a single inspired cabinet appointment ? (i'll grant maybe a couple rise just above the mediocre.)
Bradley is there for unswerving loyalty and a trouble-free existence. Once one of those disappears, I tend to agree her usefulness declines. That said, a cabinet reshuffle is probably not on TM's to-do list in the next few weeks.
It's one of the things that makes a new PM hugely attractive though. Clear out the dead wood.
Bradley may not be very good, but the reaction to her comments is absurdly overblown. As @David L says, these people need to get over themselves.
In general (and in another context), I'd agree, but NI Secretary is a role where you really do need to be careful how you choose your words. She just doesn't seem to be very good.
I wouldn't argue that she isn't useless, even lawyers have limits, but as I pointed out last week the idea that a cabinet minister should resign for merely being useless is a dangerous one indeed, especially to a cabinet (still!!) including Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, Mundell....
It is of course even more dangerous to a PM who has misplaced her majority.
True. In any case, this little storm in a rock-pool is about to be engulfed by the tsunami of Brexit chaos.
Indeed. Can May really survive another heavy defeat? There has to come a point when we conclude that if May is the answer we are asking the wrong question.
The Telegraph this morning allowed Fraser Nelson to tout a conspiracy theory that Philip Hammond has been sabotaging Brexit, complete with cartoon portraying him as an evil mad scientist. The hardliners are nowhere near ready to accept responsibility for their own failings yet.
Are you telling us that Phil has been working hard to get the Brexit that the people voted for ?
If so I have a bridge for sale.
'the Brexit that the people voted for' That would be the one where 66% wanted to stay in the Single Market (see prev PB article). Well yes he probably has.
Bradley may not be very good, but the reaction to her comments is absurdly overblown. As @David L says, these people need to get over themselves.
In general (and in another context), I'd agree, but NI Secretary is a role where you really do need to be careful how you choose your words. She just doesn't seem to be very good.
I wouldn't argue that she isn't useless, even lawyers have limits, but as I pointed out last week the idea that a cabinet minister should resign for merely being useless is a dangerous one indeed, especially to a cabinet (still!!) including Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, Mundell....
It is of course even more dangerous to a PM who has misplaced her majority.
True. In any case, this little storm in a rock-pool is about to be engulfed by the tsunami of Brexit chaos.
Indeed. Can May really survive another heavy defeat? There has to come a point when we conclude that if May is the answer we are asking the wrong question.
Before we even get to the vote, there could be a really difficult moment. At the moment it's unclear that there is going to be any movement at all from the EU on the backstop. If there isn't, it would leave her in an incredibly difficult position: does she say 'oh well, can't be helped, vote for my deal anyway as the least bad available', or does she say 'sadly, I have to report that the intransigence of the EU means I can no longer recommend that the House supports the deal'. Either course looks fatal.
Bradley may not be very good, but the reaction to her comments is absurdly overblown. As @David L says, these people need to get over themselves.
In general (and in another context), I'd agree, but NI Secretary is a role where you really do need to be careful how you choose your words. She just doesn't seem to be very good.
I wouldn't argue that she isn't useless, even lawyers have limits, but as I pointed out last week the idea that a cabinet minister should resign for merely being useless is a dangerous one indeed, especially to a cabinet (still!!) including Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, Mundell....
It is of course even more dangerous to a PM who has misplaced her majority.
True. In any case, this little storm in a rock-pool is about to be engulfed by the tsunami of Brexit chaos.
Indeed. Can May really survive another heavy defeat? There has to come a point when we conclude that if May is the answer we are asking the wrong question.
One thing May has managed to do extraordinarily well is weaponise the poisoned chalice. She knows no-one else wants the job until there is light at the end of the tunnel.
Given she was saying this back in September: “I didn’t understand things like when elections are fought, for example, in Northern Ireland – people who are nationalists don’t vote for unionist parties and vice versa", her ignorance is utterly remarkable for a secretary of state, and it is now clear that she lacks either the will or the capacity to educate herself about her brief.
Soubry is correct.
May needs to carry the can for this appointment, which looks singularly uninspired....
FFS, is there a single inspired cabinet appointment ? (i'll grant maybe a couple rise just above the mediocre.)
Bradley is there for unswerving loyalty and a trouble-free existence. Once one of those disappears, I tend to agree her usefulness declines. That said, a cabinet reshuffle is probably not on TM's to-do list in the next few weeks.
It's one of the things that makes a new PM hugely attractive though. Clear out the dead wood.
Which begs a rather large question about where the replacement sound timber is to be sourced...
Bradley may not be very good, but the reaction to her comments is absurdly overblown. As @David L says, these people need to get over themselves.
In general (and in another context), I'd agree, but NI Secretary is a role where you really do need to be careful how you choose your words. She just doesn't seem to be very good.
I wouldn't argue that she isn't useless, even lawyers have limits, but as I pointed out last week the idea that a cabinet minister should resign for merely being useless is a dangerous one indeed, especially to a cabinet (still!!) including Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, Mundell....
It is of course even more dangerous to a PM who has misplaced her majority.
True. In any case, this little storm in a rock-pool is about to be engulfed by the tsunami of Brexit chaos.
Indeed. Can May really survive another heavy defeat? There has to come a point when we conclude that if May is the answer we are asking the wrong question.
Before we even get to the vote, there could be a really difficult moment. At the moment it's unclear that there is going to be any movement at all from the EU on the backstop. If there isn't, it would leave her in an incredibly difficult position: does she say 'oh well, can't be helped, vote for my deal anyway as the least bad available', or does she say 'sadly, I have to report that the intransigence of the EU means I can no longer recommend that the House supports the deal'. Either course looks fatal.
Really interesting, could be incredibly dangerous for her. Surely the second is impossible; it's her deal that she spent 2 years negotiating. So she will have to fall back on selling the deal she's got - which she seems totally unsuited to do.
Yesterday's thread (I think a quote from John Rentoul) had a much more promising approach but it looks like she just can't do it.
Yes in a way, but no because it is Israel not the Jews.
Indeed. Israel is not the Jews. Just as ISIS, say, is not the Muslims. In fact far less so, based on relative numbers.
Conclusion - either both antisemitism and islamophobia are in some cases understandable or neither are.
Yes?
Of course they are understandable. I understand many of the causes of islamophobia and anti-semitism. I believe @Richard_Nabavi said that a degree of whatever word he used I don't think islamophobia is not surprising in the light of the Islamic terrorists trying to blow us up. There is also plenty of anti-semitism around and that is not surprising either.
What exact point are you and @Chris trying to make?
Just that Richard Nabavi said anti-Muslim prejudice was unsurprising, and I suggested the test of substituting "Jew" for "Muslim" in what he had just written. You responded by implying that wouldn't be appropriate because there was Muslim terrorism but not Jewish terrorism.
My point, of course, was that anti-Muslim prejudice and antisemitism were equally bad, but - from your response - you seemed to disagree. Now you seem to be broadly agreeing.
My "exact point" really is that I'm puzzled by what your "exact point" was in drawing a distinction between Jews and Muslims in relation to terrorism. That's what kicked off the whole argument.
By your logic, this article excuses and justifies murder:
Not at all. My objection is to singling one group out and saying prejudice against them is "unsurprising".
You really do need to look at your own motives. Why on earth are you so blind that you can't see that I was making a completely uncontroversial point about the likely factors behind the rise in Islamophobia, no different in principle to looking at possible factors behind a rise in knife crime?
I suggest you start again and read what I wrote, and then apologise. I don't mind too much that you accused me of bigotry - that's so daft that no-one could take it seriously - but accusing me of being like Boris FFS!
Are you implying that it is plausible that you are like Boris?
The other aspect is what people claim is “discrimination.”
For example it is possible to argue legitimately for integration not multiculturalism.
Someone on the right night argue that without integration you create the basis for alienation and disassociation and create an environment where terrorist can flourish. So it is rational and the right thing to do to encourage integration, possibly from first principles and possibly as a reaction to terrorism.
Someone on the left, however, might believe that the desire for integration represents extreme anti-Muslim prejudice because you are insisting they give up essential elements of their historical culture by, for example, insisting on equal rights for women and homosexuals.
TBF, the driver of Islamophobia is rarely a passionate desire to further the interests of women and homosexuals.
I haven't been too engaged over the last two days mainly because so much of politics today is unfathomable and even petty.
I have not listened to TM speech today because I am convinced that her deal and no deal will fall next week and we are heading to Norway+ or remain, and both are ok by me
I have received several e mails from TIG with interesting ideas and requests for donations which I have not yet contributed to but I am keeping an open mind, just in case ERG take over which would not be acceptable to me.
Bradley may not be very good, but the reaction to her comments is absurdly overblown. As @David L says, these people need to get over themselves.
In general (and in another context), I'd agree, but NI Secretary is a role where you really do need to be careful how you choose your words. She just doesn't seem to be very good.
I wouldn't argue that she isn't useless, even lawyers have limits, but as I pointed out last week the idea that a cabinet minister should resign for merely being useless is a dangerous one indeed, especially to a cabinet (still!!) including Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, Mundell....
It is of course even more dangerous to a PM who has misplaced her majority.
True. In any case, this little storm in a rock-pool is about to be engulfed by the tsunami of Brexit chaos.
Indeed. Can May really survive another heavy defeat? There has to come a point when we conclude that if May is the answer we are asking the wrong question.
Before we even get to the vote, there could be a really difficult moment. At the moment it's unclear that there is going to be any movement at all from the EU on the backstop. If there isn't, it would leave her in an incredibly difficult position: does she say 'oh well, can't be helped, vote for my deal anyway as the least bad available', or does she say 'sadly, I have to report that the intransigence of the EU means I can no longer recommend that the House supports the deal'. Either course looks fatal.
I am sure that Geoffrey Cox will get her something. Whether she has to make something of nothing remains to be seen.
Bradley may not be very good, but the reaction to her comments is absurdly overblown. As @David L says, these people need to get over themselves.
In general (and in another context), I'd agree, but NI Secretary is a role where you really do need to be careful how you choose your words. She just doesn't seem to be very good.
I wouldn't argue that she isn't useless, even lawyers have limits, but as I pointed out last week the idea that a cabinet minister should resign for merely being useless is a dangerous one indeed, especially to a cabinet (still!!) including Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, Mundell....
It is of course even more dangerous to a PM who has misplaced her majority.
True. In any case, this little storm in a rock-pool is about to be engulfed by the tsunami of Brexit chaos.
Indeed. Can May really survive another heavy defeat? There has to come a point when we conclude that if May is the answer we are asking the wrong question.
Before we even get to the vote, there could be a really difficult moment. At the moment it's unclear that there is going to be any movement at all from the EU on the backstop. If there isn't, it would leave her in an incredibly difficult position: does she say 'oh well, can't be helped, vote for my deal anyway as the least bad available', or does she say 'sadly, I have to report that the intransigence of the EU means I can no longer recommend that the House supports the deal'. Either course looks fatal.
Really interesting, could be incredibly dangerous for her. Surely the second is impossible; it's her deal that she spent 2 years negotiating. So she will have to fall back on selling the deal she's got - which she seems totally unsuited to do.
Yesterday's thread (I think a quote from John Rentoul) had a much more promising approach but it looks like she just can't do it.
The Telegraph have an article on key points during the brexit negotiations. One was that the backstop was discussed at full Cabinet and agreed by the Cabinet with at least Boris, DD and Gove objecting.
I think she would appreciate a little help from the other Cabinet members that agreed with the backstop but they seem to not have "moral fibre" or they have leadership ambitions.
Bradley may not be very good, but the reaction to her comments is absurdly overblown. As @David L says, these people need to get over themselves.
In general (and in another context), I'd agree, but NI Secretary is a role where you really do need to be careful how you choose your words. She just doesn't seem to be very good.
I wouldn't argue that she isn't useless, even lawyers have limits, but as I pointed out last week the idea that a cabinet minister should resign for merely being useless is a dangerous one indeed, especially to a cabinet (still!!) including Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, Mundell....
It is of course even more dangerous to a PM who has misplaced her majority.
True. In any case, this little storm in a rock-pool is about to be engulfed by the tsunami of Brexit chaos.
Indeed. Can May really survive another heavy defeat? There has to come a point when we conclude that if May is the answer we are asking the wrong question.
Fair question.
I would expect her to let the HOC dictate the way forward and if we move to Norway she should conclude the deal and then retire. If a referendum, I expect she would have to defend her deal and if lost resign
The party needs a complete shakeup anyway and the sooner the better
Jeremy Corbyn, today's speech at the Scottish Labour conference:
We believe that the real divide in our society is not between people who voted yes or no for independence. And it’s not between people who voted to remain or to leave the EU.
The real divide is between the many – who do the work, create the wealth and pay their taxes – and the few, who set the rules, reap the rewards and dodge their taxes. So let me spell it out: our mission is to back the working class, in all its diversity.
Theresa May, 2016 Conference speech:
But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means.
So if you’re a boss who earns a fortune but doesn’t look after your staff... a director who takes out massive dividends while knowing that the company pension is about to go bust…
I’m putting you on warning. This can’t go on anymore.
A change has got to come. And this party – the Conservative Party – is going to make that change.
So today, I want to set out my plan for a Britain where everyone plays by the same rules and every person has the opportunity to be all they want to be.
One caused howls of rage from metropolitan luvvies and the other will attract safe notes and murmured agreement
Prejudice against Muslims is not irrational. It's understandable. Just as prejudice against the Jews is not irrational to Jeremy Corbyn and any like-minded lefty types.
I'd say that islamophobia among westerners is if anything more irrational than antisemitism on the pro-palestinian hard left because whilst half the world's jews live in Israel, only a tiny fraction of the world's muslims are involved in ISIS and the like.
But, bottom line for me, both are irrational and yet I do agree that they are at the same time understandable. Irrationality being perfectly understandable because people are irrational - look at Brexit.
Dislike, fear, mistrust, and loathing of Islam is entirely rational in western societies. From fgm to mass racial underage gang rape to de facto blasphemy laws to sharia courts to the burka and niqab to the threat of constant terrorism to cousin marriage (plus defective babies) to honour killings to homophobia to etc etc etc
Mass Islamic immigration into the west has been a total disaster. Apart from the curries. But we could have got Hindu Indians to cook them. So what else has Muslim migration brought us? Nothing but trouble, rape, violence, and maybe the end of the Enlightenment. Everybody knows this, everybody thinks this, polls show 50% or more of westerners agree with this and want Islamic immigration to end ENTIRELY.
Prejudice against Muslims is not irrational. It's understandable. Just as prejudice against the Jews is not irrational to Jeremy Corbyn and any like-minded lefty types.
I'd say that islamophobia among westerners is if anything more irrational than antisemitism on the pro-palestinian hard left because whilst half the world's jews live in Israel, only a tiny fraction of the world's muslims are involved in ISIS and the like.
But, bottom line for me, both are irrational and yet I do agree that they are at the same time understandable. Irrationality being perfectly understandable because people are irrational - look at Brexit.
Bradley may not be very good, but the reaction to her comments is absurdly overblown. As @David L says, these people need to get over themselves.
In general (and in another context), I'd agree, but NI Secretary is a role where you really do need to be careful how you choose your words. She just doesn't seem to be very good.
I wouldn't argue that she isn't useless, even lawyers have limits, but as I pointed out last week the idea that a cabinet minister should resign for merely being useless is a dangerous one indeed, especially to a cabinet (still!!) including Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, Mundell....
It is of course even more dangerous to a PM who has misplaced her majority.
True. In any case, this little storm in a rock-pool is about to be engulfed by the tsunami of Brexit chaos.
Indeed. Can May really survive another heavy defeat? There has to come a point when we conclude that if May is the answer we are asking the wrong question.
Before we even get to the vote, there could be a really difficult moment. At the moment it's unclear that there is going to be any movement at all from the EU on the backstop. If there isn't, it would leave her in an incredibly difficult position: does she say 'oh well, can't be helped, vote for my deal anyway as the least bad available', or does she say 'sadly, I have to report that the intransigence of the EU means I can no longer recommend that the House supports the deal'. Either course looks fatal.
I am sure that Geoffrey Cox will get her something. Whether she has to make something of nothing remains to be seen.
Cox will provide some weasel words that mean nothing but will provide enough cover for some of the ERG to back the deal without appear too abject. Whether the DUP will be convinced I'm not sure. If they are she'd be getting close to a majority and might then be able to justify a third MV.
Bradley may not be very good, but the reaction to her comments is absurdly overblown. As @David L says, these people need to get over themselves.
In general (and in another context), I'd agree, but NI Secretary is a role where you really do need to be careful how you choose your words. She just doesn't seem to be very good.
I wouldn't argue that she isn't useless, even lawyers have limits, but as I pointed out last week the idea that a cabinet minister should resign for merely being useless is a dangerous one indeed, especially to a cabinet (still!!) including Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, Mundell....
It is of course even more dangerous to a PM who has misplaced her majority.
True. In any case, this little storm in a rock-pool is about to be engulfed by the tsunami of Brexit chaos.
Indeed. Can May really survive another heavy defeat? There has to come a point when we conclude that if May is the answer we are asking the wrong question.
Before we even get to the vote, there could be a really difficult moment. At the moment it's unclear that there is going to be any movement at all from the EU on the backstop. If there isn't, it would leave her in an incredibly difficult position: does she say 'oh well, can't be helped, vote for my deal anyway as the least bad available', or does she say 'sadly, I have to report that the intransigence of the EU means I can no longer recommend that the House supports the deal'. Either course looks fatal.
I am sure that Geoffrey Cox will get her something. Whether she has to make something of nothing remains to be seen.
The something appears to be - as I suggested - an independent body to confirm that BOTH sides are keeping to their obligations in the Withdrawal Agreement. The problem is that the ERG will not support this if there is even a single EU member on the body. And the EU will not believe that this isn't all a plot by the DUP/UK government if they don't get to have an observer. (AIUI, they have no issue with us having a member of the panel to even things out.)
Given she was saying this back in September: “I didn’t understand things like when elections are fought, for example, in Northern Ireland – people who are nationalists don’t vote for unionist parties and vice versa", her ignorance is utterly remarkable for a secretary of state, and it is now clear that she lacks either the will or the capacity to educate herself about her brief.
Soubry is correct.
May needs to carry the can for this appointment, which looks singularly uninspired....
FFS, is there a single inspired cabinet appointment ? (i'll grant maybe a couple rise just above the mediocre.)
Bradley is there for unswerving loyalty and a trouble-free existence. Once one of those disappears, I tend to agree her usefulness declines. That said, a cabinet reshuffle is probably not on TM's to-do list in the next few weeks.
It's one of the things that makes a new PM hugely attractive though. Clear out the dead wood.
Which begs a rather large question about where the replacement sound timber is to be sourced...
Bradley may not be very good, but the reaction to her comments is absurdly overblown. As @David L says, these people need to get over themselves.
In general (and in another context), I'd agree, but NI Secretary is a role where you really do need to be careful how you choose your words. She just doesn't seem to be very good.
I wouldn't argue that she isn't useless, even lawyers have limits, but as I pointed out last week the idea that a cabinet minister should resign for merely being useless is a dangerous one indeed, especially to a cabinet (still!!) including Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, Mundell....
It is of course even more dangerous to a PM who has misplaced her majority.
True. In any case, this little storm in a rock-pool is about to be engulfed by the tsunami of Brexit chaos.
Indeed. Can May really survive another heavy defeat? There has to come a point when we conclude that if May is the answer we are asking the wrong question.
Before we even get to the vote, there could be a really difficult moment. At the moment it's unclear that there is going to be any movement at all from the EU on the backstop. If there isn't, it would leave her in an incredibly difficult position: does she say 'oh well, can't be helped, vote for my deal anyway as the least bad available', or does she say 'sadly, I have to report that the intransigence of the EU means I can no longer recommend that the House supports the deal'. Either course looks fatal.
I am sure that Geoffrey Cox will get her something. Whether she has to make something of nothing remains to be seen.
The something appears to be - as I suggested - an independent body to confirm that BOTH sides are keeping to their obligations in the Withdrawal Agreement. The problem is that the ERG will not support this if there is even a single EU member on the body. And the EU will not believe that this isn't all a plot by the DUP/UK government if they don't get to have an observer. (AIUI, they have no issue with us having a member of the panel to even things out.)
Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary I am reluctant to accept that the ERG are that stupid. Yet.
Bradley may not be very good, but the reaction to her comments is absurdly overblown. As @David L says, these people need to get over themselves.
In general (and in another context), I'd agree, but NI Secretary is a role where you really do need to be careful how you choose your words. She just doesn't seem to be very good.
I wouldn't argue that she isn't useless, even lawyers have limits, but as I pointed out last week the idea that a cabinet minister should resign for merely being useless is a dangerous one indeed, especially to a cabinet (still!!) including Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, Mundell....
It is of course even more dangerous to a PM who has misplaced her majority.
True. In any case, this little storm in a rock-pool is about to be engulfed by the tsunami of Brexit chaos.
Indeed. Can May really survive another heavy defeat? There has to come a point when we conclude that if May is the answer we are asking the wrong question.
Before we even get to the vote, there could be a really difficult moment. At the moment it's unclear that there is going to be any movement at all from the EU on the backstop. If there isn't, it would leave her in an incredibly difficult position: does she say 'oh well, can't be helped, vote for my deal anyway as the least bad available', or does she say 'sadly, I have to report that the intransigence of the EU means I can no longer recommend that the House supports the deal'. Either course looks fatal.
It's similar to the UK making snarky comments about the EU but the EU, having the internet, being able to see what's going on over here. Likewise, the ERG for all their Francois's* and Bridgens, probably have plenty of lawyers also and so the wording which will have to come to relate to the backstop will have to be particularly nuanced.
Bradley may not be very good, but the reaction to her comments is absurdly overblown. As @David L says, these people need to get over themselves.
In general (and in another context), I'd agree, but NI Secretary is a role where you really do need to be careful how you choose your words. She just doesn't seem to be very good.
I wouldn't argue that she isn't useless, even lawyers have limits, but as I pointed out last week the idea that a cabinet minister should resign for merely being useless is a dangerous one indeed, especially to a cabinet (still!!) including Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, Mundell....
It is of course even more dangerous to a PM who has misplaced her majority.
True. In any case, this little storm in a rock-pool is about to be engulfed by the tsunami of Brexit chaos.
Indeed. Can May really survive another heavy defeat? There has to come a point when we conclude that if May is the answer we are asking the wrong question.
Before we even get to the vote, there could be a really difficult moment. At the moment it's unclear that there is going to be any movement at all from the EU on the backstop. If there isn't, it would leave her in an incredibly difficult position: does she say 'oh well, can't be helped, vote for my deal anyway as the least bad available', or does she say 'sadly, I have to report that the intransigence of the EU means I can no longer recommend that the House supports the deal'. Either course looks fatal.
I am sure that Geoffrey Cox will get her something. Whether she has to make something of nothing remains to be seen.
Cox will provide some weasel words that mean nothing but will provide enough cover for some of the ERG to back the deal without appear too abject. Whether the DUP will be convinced I'm not sure. If they are she'd be getting close to a majority and might then be able to justify a third MV.
I walked out of Starbucks the other day because, my first visit in a long while, I was shocked to be charged £2.70 for an americano (the cheapest drink on the menu). That is simply too much for a cup of coffee.
Bradley may not be very good, but the reaction to her comments is absurdly overblown. As @David L says, these people need to get over themselves.
In general (and in another context), I'd agree, but NI Secretary is a role where you really do need to be careful how you choose your words. She just doesn't seem to be very good.
I wouldn't argue that she isn't useless, even lawyers have limits, but as I pointed out last week the idea that a cabinet minister should resign for merely being useless is a dangerous one indeed, especially to a cabinet (still!!) including Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, Mundell....
It is of course even more dangerous to a PM who has misplaced her majority.
True. In any case, this little storm in a rock-pool is about to be engulfed by the tsunami of Brexit chaos.
Indeed. Can May really survive another heavy defeat? There has to come a point when we conclude that if May is the answer we are asking the wrong question.
Before we even get to the vote, there could be a really difficult moment. At the moment it's unclear that there is going to be any movement at all from the EU on the backstop. If there isn't, it would leave her in an incredibly difficult position: does she say 'oh well, can't be helped, vote for my deal anyway as the least bad available', or does she say 'sadly, I have to report that the intransigence of the EU means I can no longer recommend that the House supports the deal'. Either course looks fatal.
It's similar to the UK making snarky comments about the EU but the EU, having the internet, being able to see what's going on over here. Likewise, the ERG for all their Francois's* and Bridgens, probably have plenty of lawyers also and so the wording which will have to come to relate to the backstop will have to be particularly nuanced.
*what is the plural/apostrophe situation here?
Or similar to the EU Presidents and negotiating team high-fiving each other and gloating about how they managed to get a deal that completely screws the British for years to come.
Bradley may not be very good, but the reaction to her comments is absurdly overblown. As @David L says, these people need to get over themselves.
In general (and in another context), I'd agree, but NI Secretary is a role where you really do need to be careful how you choose your words. She just doesn't seem to be very good.
I wouldn't argue that she isn't useless, even lawyers have limits, but as I pointed out last week the idea that a cabinet minister should resign for merely being useless is a dangerous one indeed, especially to a cabinet (still!!) including Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, Mundell....
It is of course even more dangerous to a PM who has misplaced her majority.
True. In any case, this little storm in a rock-pool is about to be engulfed by the tsunami of Brexit chaos.
Indeed. Can May really survive another heavy defeat? There has to come a point when we conclude that if May is the answer we are asking the wrong question.
Before we even get to the vote, there could be a really difficult moment. At the moment it's unclear that there is going to be any movement at all from the EU on the backstop. If there isn't, it would leave her in an incredibly difficult position: does she say 'oh well, can't be helped, vote for my deal anyway as the least bad available', or does she say 'sadly, I have to report that the intransigence of the EU means I can no longer recommend that the House supports the deal'. Either course looks fatal.
I am sure that Geoffrey Cox will get her something. Whether she has to make something of nothing remains to be seen.
The something appears to be - as I suggested - an independent body to confirm that BOTH sides are keeping to their obligations in the Withdrawal Agreement. The problem is that the ERG will not support this if there is even a single EU member on the body. And the EU will not believe that this isn't all a plot by the DUP/UK government if they don't get to have an observer. (AIUI, they have no issue with us having a member of the panel to even things out.)
Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary I am reluctant to accept that the ERG are that stupid. Yet.
The ERG believe that the EU is Antichrist. And, there can be no agreement between the children of Light, and the children of Darkness.
Bradley may not be very good, but the reaction to her comments is absurdly overblown. As @David L says, these people need to get over themselves.
In general (and in another context), I'd agree, but NI Secretary is a role where you really do need to be careful how you choose your words. She just doesn't seem to be very good.
I wouldn't argue that she isn't useless, even lawyers have limits, but as I pointed out last week the idea that a cabinet minister should resign for merely being useless is a dangerous one indeed, especially to a cabinet (still!!) including Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, Mundell....
It is of course even more dangerous to a PM who has misplaced her majority.
True. In any case, this little storm in a rock-pool is about to be engulfed by the tsunami of Brexit chaos.
Indeed. Can May really survive another heavy defeat? There has to come a point when we conclude that if May is the answer we are asking the wrong question.
Before we even get to the vote, there could be a really difficult moment. At the moment it's unclear that there is going to be any movement at all from the EU on the backstop. If there isn't, it would leave her in an incredibly difficult position: does she say 'oh well, can't be helped, vote for my deal anyway as the least bad available', or does she say 'sadly, I have to report that the intransigence of the EU means I can no longer recommend that the House supports the deal'. Either course looks fatal.
It's similar to the UK making snarky comments about the EU but the EU, having the internet, being able to see what's going on over here. Likewise, the ERG for all their Francois's* and Bridgens, probably have plenty of lawyers also and so the wording which will have to come to relate to the backstop will have to be particularly nuanced.
*what is the plural/apostrophe situation here?
No apostrophe and an -es ending for plural. Like keeping up with the Joneses
I haven't been too engaged over the last two days mainly because so much of politics today is unfathomable and even petty.
I have not listened to TM speech today because I am convinced that her deal and no deal will fall next week and we are heading to Norway+ or remain, and both are ok by me
I have received several e mails from TIG with interesting ideas and requests for donations which I have not yet contributed to but I am keeping an open mind, just in case ERG take over which would not be acceptable to me.
True. In any case, this little storm in a rock-pool is about to be engulfed by the tsunami of Brexit chaos.
Indeed. Can May really survive another heavy defeat? There has to come a point when we conclude that if May is the answer we are asking the wrong question.
Before we even get to the vote, there could be a really difficult moment. At the moment it's unclear that there is going to be any movement at all from the EU on the backstop. If there isn't, it would leave her in an incredibly difficult position: does she say 'oh well, can't be helped, vote for my deal anyway as the least bad available', or does she say 'sadly, I have to report that the intransigence of the EU means I can no longer recommend that the House supports the deal'. Either course looks fatal.
I am sure that Geoffrey Cox will get her something. Whether she has to make something of nothing remains to be seen.
The something appears to be - as I suggested - an independent body to confirm that BOTH sides are keeping to their obligations in the Withdrawal Agreement. The problem is that the ERG will not support this if there is even a single EU member on the body. And the EU will not believe that this isn't all a plot by the DUP/UK government if they don't get to have an observer. (AIUI, they have no issue with us having a member of the panel to even things out.)
Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary I am reluctant to accept that the ERG are that stupid. Yet.
The ERG believe that the EU is Antichrist. And, there can be no agreement between the children of Light, and the children of Darkness.
I am not sure this is a particularly useful metaphor for dealing with bureaucrats, jobsworths, time servers and the odd fanatic. Or with the EU either.
Bradley may not be very good, but the reaction to her comments is absurdly overblown. As @David L says, these people need to get over themselves.
In general (and in another context), I'd agree, but NI Secretary is a role where you really do need to be careful how you choose your words. She just doesn't seem to be very good.
I wouldn't argue that she isn't useless, even lawyers have limits, but as I pointed out last week the idea that a cabinet minister should resign for merely being useless is a dangerous one indeed, especially to a cabinet (still!!) including Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, Mundell....
It is of course even more dangerous to a PM who has misplaced her majority.
True. In any case, this little storm in a rock-pool is about to be engulfed by the tsunami of Brexit chaos.
Indeed. Can May really survive another heavy defeat? There has to come a point when we conclude that if May is the answer we are asking the wrong question.
Before we even get to the vote, there could be a really difficult moment. At the moment it's unclear that there is going to be any movement at all from the EU on the backstop. If there isn't, it would leave her in an incredibly difficult position: does she say 'oh well, can't be helped, vote for my deal anyway as the least bad available', or does she say 'sadly, I have to report that the intransigence of the EU means I can no longer recommend that the House supports the deal'. Either course looks fatal.
It's similar to the UK making snarky comments about the EU but the EU, having the internet, being able to see what's going on over here. Likewise, the ERG for all their Francois's* and Bridgens, probably have plenty of lawyers also and so the wording which will have to come to relate to the backstop will have to be particularly nuanced.
*what is the plural/apostrophe situation here?
No apostrophe and an -es ending for plural. Like keeping up with the Joneses
You would have to be a pretty unpleasant bore to keep up with the Francoises
Bradley may not be very good, but the reaction to her comments is absurdly overblown. As @David L says, these people need to get over themselves.
In general (and in another context), I'd agree, but NI Secretary is a role where you really do need to be careful how you choose your words. She just doesn't seem to be very good.
I wouldn't argue that she isn't useless, even lawyers have limits, but as I pointed out last week the idea that a cabinet minister should resign for merely being useless is a dangerous one indeed, especially to a cabinet (still!!) including Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, Mundell....
It is of course even more dangerous to a PM who has misplaced her majority.
True. In any case, this little storm in a rock-pool is about to be engulfed by the tsunami of Brexit chaos.
Indeed. Can May really survive another heavy defeat? There has to come a point when we conclude that if May is the answer we are asking the wrong question.
Before we even get to the vote, there could be a really difficult moment. At the moment it's unclear that there is going to be any movement at all from the EU on the backstop. If there isn't, it would leave her in an incredibly difficult position: does she say 'oh well, can't be helped, vote for my deal anyway as the least bad available', or does she say 'sadly, I have to report that the intransigence of the EU means I can no longer recommend that the House supports the deal'. Either course looks fatal.
It's similar to the UK making snarky comments about the EU but the EU, having the internet, being able to see what's going on over here. Likewise, the ERG for all their Francois's* and Bridgens, probably have plenty of lawyers also and so the wording which will have to come to relate to the backstop will have to be particularly nuanced.
*what is the plural/apostrophe situation here?
No apostrophe and an -es ending for plural. Like keeping up with the Joneses
A nation breathes easy. I might have to ask Robert to expunge my offending post from the records...
Prejudice against Muslims is not irrational. It's understandable. Just as prejudice against the Jews is not irrational to Jeremy Corbyn and any like-minded lefty types.
I'd say that islamophobia among westerners is if anything more irrational than antisemitism on the pro-palestinian hard left because whilst half the world's jews live in Israel, only a tiny fraction of the world's muslims are involved in ISIS and the like.
But, bottom line for me, both are irrational and yet I do agree that they are at the same time understandable. Irrationality being perfectly understandable because people are irrational - look at Brexit.
Dislike, fear, mistrust, and loathing of Islam is entirely rational in western societies. From fgm to mass racial underage gang rape to de facto blasphemy laws to sharia courts to the burka and niqab to the threat of constant terrorism to cousin marriage (plus defective babies) to honour killings to homophobia to etc etc etc
Mass Islamic immigration into the west has been a total disaster. Apart from the curries. But we could have got Hindu Indians to cook them. So what else has Muslim migration brought us? Nothing but trouble, rape, violence, and maybe the end of the Enlightenment. Everybody knows this, everybody thinks this, polls show 50% or more of westerners agree with this and want Islamic immigration to end ENTIRELY.
Only pb liberals pretend otherwise.
My wife, technically, is a Muslim - or at least would be seen as such by small-minded idiots.
Therefore you can fuck. right. off, you fetid, horrid little diseased pustule.
Bradley may not be very good, but the reaction to her comments is absurdly overblown. As @David L says, these people need to get over themselves.
In general (and in another context), I'd agree, but NI Secretary is a role where you really do need to be careful how you choose your words. She just doesn't seem to be very good.
I wouldn't argue that she isn't useless, even lawyers have limits, but as I pointed out last week the idea that a cabinet minister should resign for merely being useless is a dangerous one indeed, especially to a cabinet (still!!) including Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, Mundell....
It is of course even more dangerous to a PM who has misplaced her majority.
True. In any case, this little storm in a rock-pool is about to be engulfed by the tsunami of Brexit chaos.
Indeed. Can May really survive another heavy defeat? There has to come a point when we conclude that if May is the answer we are asking the wrong question.
Before we even get to the vote, there could be a really difficult moment. At the moment it's unclear that there is going to be any movement at all from the EU on the backstop. If there isn't, it would leave her in an incredibly difficult position: does she say 'oh well, can't be helped, vote for my deal anyway as the least bad available', or does she say 'sadly, I have to report that the intransigence of the EU means I can no longer recommend that the House supports the deal'. Either course looks fatal.
It's similar to the UK making snarky comments about the EU but the EU, having the internet, being able to see what's going on over here. Likewise, the ERG for all their Francois's* and Bridgens, probably have plenty of lawyers also and so the wording which will have to come to relate to the backstop will have to be particularly nuanced.
*what is the plural/apostrophe situation here?
Or similar to the EU Presidents and negotiating team high-fiving each other and gloating about how they managed to get a deal that completely screws the British for years to come.
Do stop dribbling. Your anti-EU paranoia, and those like you that share it are the reason why we are in the mess we are in. Completely unnecessarily I might add.
Prejudice against Muslims is not irrational. It's understandable. Just as prejudice against the Jews is not irrational to Jeremy Corbyn and any like-minded lefty types.
I'd say that islamophobia among westerners is if anything more irrational than antisemitism on the pro-palestinian hard left because whilst half the world's jews live in Israel, only a tiny fraction of the world's muslims are involved in ISIS and the like.
But, bottom line for me, both are irrational and yet I do agree that they are at the same time understandable. Irrationality being perfectly understandable because people are irrational - look at Brexit.
Dislike, fear, mistrust, and loathing of Islam is entirely rational in western societies. From fgm to mass racial underage gang rape to de facto blasphemy laws to sharia courts to the burka and niqab to the threat of constant terrorism to cousin marriage (plus defective babies) to honour killings to homophobia to etc etc etc
Mass Islamic immigration into the west has been a total disaster. Apart from the curries. But we could have got Hindu Indians to cook them. So what else has Muslim migration brought us? Nothing but trouble, rape, violence, and maybe the end of the Enlightenment. Everybody knows this, everybody thinks this, polls show 50% or more of westerners agree with this and want Islamic immigration to end ENTIRELY.
Only pb liberals pretend otherwise.
My wife, technically, is a Muslim - or at least would be seen as such by small-minded idiots.
Therefore you can fuck. right. off, you fetid, horrid little diseased pustule.
Having a number of very good friends who are Muslims I support and reiterate your understandable response to that revolting post. It is one of the most unpleasant and prejudiced, moronic posts I have ever seen on here. I hope he reflects on it and realises that it is completely inappropriate. Equivalent to vile anti-Semetism we would see from one of Corbyn's acolytes.
Prejudice against Muslims is not irrational. It's understandable. Just as prejudice against the Jews is not irrational to Jeremy Corbyn and any like-minded lefty types.
I'd say that islamophobia among westerners is if anything more irrational than antisemitism on the pro-palestinian hard left because whilst half the world's jews live in Israel, only a tiny fraction of the world's muslims are involved in ISIS and the like.
But, bottom line for me, both are irrational and yet I do agree that they are at the same time understandable. Irrationality being perfectly understandable because people are irrational - look at Brexit.
Dislike, fear, mistrust, and loathing of Islam is entirely rational in western societies. From fgm to mass racial underage gang rape to de facto blasphemy laws to sharia courts to the burka and niqab to the threat of constant terrorism to cousin marriage (plus defective babies) to honour killings to homophobia to etc etc etc
Mass Islamic immigration into the west has been a total disaster. Apart from the curries. But we could have got Hindu Indians to cook them. So what else has Muslim migration brought us? Nothing but trouble, rape, violence, and maybe the end of the Enlightenment. Everybody knows this, everybody thinks this, polls show 50% or more of westerners agree with this and want Islamic immigration to end ENTIRELY.
Only pb liberals pretend otherwise.
My wife, technically, is a Muslim - or at least would be seen as such by small-minded idiots.
Therefore you can fuck. right. off, you fetid, horrid little diseased pustule.
I said Islam, not Muslims. An individual Muslim is no more objectionable than an individual Jew, Christian. homosexual, mongoose, astronaut, croissant or electric car.
The trouble is that your wife’s religion is, at best, unenlightened, and in recent decades has become diseased by a vile extremism. This is indisputable. Inviting Muslims to live with us now is ls like inviting German nationalists to come over during the nazi era. Individually they are all probably the most honourable human beings, but their ideology has been hijacked and the risk isn’t worth it. I shall refrain from further and personal vulgar insults, like yours, because, I can’t be fucking arsed. Salaam
Prejudice against Muslims is not irrational. It's understandable. Just as prejudice against the Jews is not irrational to Jeremy Corbyn and any like-minded lefty types.
I'd say that islamophobia among westerners is if anything more irrational than antisemitism on the pro-palestinian hard left because whilst half the world's jews live in Israel, only a tiny fraction of the world's muslims are involved in ISIS and the like.
But, bottom line for me, both are irrational and yet I do agree that they are at the same time understandable. Irrationality being perfectly understandable because people are irrational - look at Brexit.
Dislike, fear, mistrust, and loathing of Islam is entirely rational in western societies. From fgm to mass racial underage gang rape to de facto blasphemy laws to sharia courts to the burka and niqab to the threat of constant terrorism to cousin marriage (plus defective babies) to honour killings to homophobia to etc etc etc
Mass Islamic immigration into the west has been a total disaster. Apart from the curries. But we could have got Hindu Indians to cook them. So what else has Muslim migration brought us? Nothing but trouble, rape, violence, and maybe the end of the Enlightenment. Everybody knows this, everybody thinks this, polls show 50% or more of westerners agree with this and want Islamic immigration to end ENTIRELY.
Only pb liberals pretend otherwise.
My wife, technically, is a Muslim - or at least would be seen as such by small-minded idiots.
Therefore you can fuck. right. off, you fetid, horrid little diseased pustule.
I said Islam, not Muslims. An individual Muslim is no more objectionable than an individual Jew, Christian. homosexual, mongoose, astronaut, croissant or electric car.
The trouble is that your wife’s religion is, at best, unenlightened, and in recent decades has become diseased by a vile extremism. This is indisputable. Inviting Muslims to live with us now is ls like inviting German nationalists to come over during the nazi era. Individually they are all probably the most honourable human beings, but their ideology has been hijacked and the risk isn’t worth it. I shall refrain from further and personal vulgar insults, like yours, because, I can’t be fucking arsed. Salaam
Your simplistic and basically ignorant post was highly offensive and shows you in a very bad light; making you look like a prejudiced moron. You deserved the vulgar insult.
Comments
Not long now until the next Incredible Important Vote Until The Next One.
Edited extra bit: Incredibly*.
It is of course even more dangerous to a PM who has misplaced her majority.
One question: we're all talking about how many MPS will back her deal, but do we see any going the other way? Who voted for it before but no longer support it? Would be a good PR opportunity for an enterprising backencher, particularly on the remain side with the prize of indicative votes clearly in sight. Any names in the frame?
But, bottom line for me, both are irrational and yet I do agree that they are at the same time understandable. Irrationality being perfectly understandable because people are irrational - look at Brexit.
That would be the one where 66% wanted to stay in the Single Market (see prev PB article).
Well yes he probably has.
Yesterday's thread (I think a quote from John Rentoul) had a much more promising approach but it looks like she just can't do it.
How about addressing the substance of the point?
I have not listened to TM speech today because I am convinced that her deal and no deal will fall next week and we are heading to Norway+ or remain, and both are ok by me
I have received several e mails from TIG with interesting ideas and requests for donations which I have not yet contributed to but I am keeping an open mind, just in case ERG take over which would not be acceptable to me.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/03/08/world/science-health-world/nasa-captures-unprecedented-images-supersonic-shock-waves-help-rock-star-pilots/
I think she would appreciate a little help from the other Cabinet members that agreed with the backstop but they seem to not have "moral fibre" or they have leadership ambitions.
I would expect her to let the HOC dictate the way forward and if we move to Norway she should conclude the deal and then retire. If a referendum, I expect she would have to defend her deal and if lost resign
The party needs a complete shakeup anyway and the sooner the better
https://twitter.com/Husker_Ju/status/1104023606445727747
Mass Islamic immigration into the west has been a total disaster. Apart from the curries. But we could have got Hindu Indians to cook them. So what else has Muslim migration brought us? Nothing but trouble, rape, violence, and maybe the end of the Enlightenment. Everybody knows this, everybody thinks this, polls show 50% or more of westerners agree with this and want Islamic immigration to end ENTIRELY.
Only pb liberals pretend otherwise.
https://twitter.com/MohammedAkunjee/status/1104022748509155330
I think that is what she is hoping for.
*what is the plural/apostrophe situation here?
https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/mar/08/grace-dent-reviews-alain-ducasse-15-pound-cup-of-coffee
It really is a collective madness
No apostrophe and an -es ending for plural. Like keeping up with the Joneses
(The gastroporn in the Guardian is always hilarious, and the CIFers below outdo themselves with variants of the Three Yorkshiremen sketch.).
I bloody love Grace Dent.
And presumably free.
Therefore you can fuck. right. off, you fetid, horrid little diseased pustule.
Not complimentary!
As bad as infer/imply
(The capital m was my spell check)
@FrancisUrquhart
"Complimentary light refreshments will be available."
https://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/04/13/compliment-or-complement/
We don't want to draw attention to it.
Ireland has always been a special place where magic happens. Applying that approach to the RoI-NI border would have been the solution.
They are providing the madeleine as a complement to the coffee
In @FrancisUrquhart example above “complimentary” coffees are “free coffees” not a supporting note
😰
Ah, I see the point has been made - but I'm still puzzled as to why Charles thought it a spelling error...
The trouble is that your wife’s religion is, at best, unenlightened, and in recent decades has become diseased by a vile extremism. This is indisputable. Inviting Muslims to live with us now is ls like inviting German nationalists to come over during the nazi era. Individually they are all probably the most honourable human beings, but their ideology has been hijacked and the risk isn’t worth it. I shall refrain from further and personal vulgar insults, like yours, because, I can’t be fucking arsed. Salaam