> @Cyclefree said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > @oxfordsimon said: > > > > > > > > @AndyJS said: > > > > > > > > It's fascinating to watch this clash between Islamic values and Birmingham City Council. Newsnight led on it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Equality and educational integrity MUST win. We cannot give way to any religion in this dispute. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not just Islam that has a problem here. It's also "mainstream" conservatism. The current and previous PMs voted against the repeal of Section 28. > > > > > > It is not mainstream conservatives taking their children out of school or protesting against having gay teachers in school. > > > > > > @oxfordsimon is right. This is a battle that must be fought and won. But the politicians who should be defending the schools and facing down the bullies are silent and cowardly. > > > > I wholeheartedly agree that the government should be facing it down. I don't think it's just cowardice, though. The last two PMs have been openly homophobic within their political careers. The silence can just as easily be attributed to tacit agreement. > > > > Also, we have bigots right here and how many are calling it out? Few. Same reasons? Fuck knows. But I've had it all my life, so no surprises. > > You may well be right that there is tacit agreement. There is open agreement by some eg that ghastly McVey woman. > > But I do think there is a large element of cowardice. A fear of being called racist or islamophobic and a fear that the protestors might use violence. After all we’ve had violence threatened and used against those who write or draw something that Muslims don’t like. And when that happened people bent over backwards to criticise the authors and the cartoonists for being offensive etc after a few ritual condemnations of the violence. > > It shows that for all the talk people don’t really care enough about equality for gay people or free speech. And that gets me really mad. This stuff matters.
> @Cyclefree said: > What is the case you mention?
Shahmir Sanni. It was horrible. His family in Pakistan had to go into hiding. I'm reading a bit more about May's contribution to the equal marriage legislation. I wasn't aware of the praise she'd received. In fact, I was under the impression she's voted against it as she had with the Section 28 repeal. I might have been a little too harsh on her in that light, and perhaps she has changed since the early 2000s. Still, the Sanni case is deeply troubling. If she wasn't behind Parkinson doing what he did, she should have fired him. She didn't.
Trump backed Brexit though unlike Obama so am sure this will do Boris no harm at all with Leave voting Tory members or indeed the voters he needs to win back from the Brexit Party to win a general election
Shahmir Sanni. It was horrible. His family in Pakistan had to go into hiding.
I'm reading a bit more about May's contribution to the equal marriage legislation. I wasn't aware of the praise she'd received. In fact, I was under the impression she's voted against it as she had with the Section 28 repeal. I might have been a little too harsh on her in that light, and perhaps she has changed since the early 2000s. Still, the Sanni case is deeply troubling. If she wasn't behind Parkinson doing what he did, she should have fired him. She didn't.
Thanks. I don’t know the case.
May doesn’t matter. But her successors do. And I see no-one in public life - other than Jess Phillips - prepared to stand up to bullies. It is both sad and worrying. If I felt that my article might help I would send it to her and others. Sod it, I might do it anyway.
We need commentators speaking up about this stuff and putting pressure on the bullies and showing the teachers and the schools and gay people that we’re on their side, that we will stand up for them and with them.
@cyclefree. "There is only one religion which has threatened and used violence." Yes, in Britain right now. However, worldwide, almost every religion, minus Quakers and Jains, are doing so on a daily basis. There is a beam in our eye. And I include Atheists in that.
> We need commentators speaking up about this stuff and putting pressure on the bullies and showing the teachers and the schools and gay people that we’re on their side, that we will stand up for them and with them.
I am part of the core team of Pride in London and will be asking what we will be doing to support the schools during this fight at our team meeting in the morning.
> @Cyclefree said: > But there is only one which has both threatened and used violence to enforce its view of the world and any analysis of this needs to take account of that sad fact.
That's not even slightly true. There are terrorist attacks by fundamentalists of all religions. Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, Jews. All have used violence in the furtherance of their religion or the suppression of other religions. Indeed, secular attacks on the religious, and vice versa, are commonplace too.
The recent prevalence of Islamist terror is partially real and partially the result of differential focus. But there's nothing fundamentally more violent about Muslims than any other religious group. In the same way that left-wing violence was more prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s and now right-wing violence is ascendant. It's not intrinsic, it's the result of circumstances.
> @oxfordsimon said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > Of course there is an issue with the ultras in a range of religions. But there is only one which has both threatened and used violence to enforce its view of the world and any analysis of this needs to take account of that sad fact. Because it leads to violence against those it targets: gay people, women, apostates, anyone who criticises them. > > I don't disagree at all - and just as with the issues with sexual exploitation of young people round the country by gangs, people have been lambasted for pointing out the correlation between membership of the gangs and the religious heritage of the participants. It isn't true to say that they all come from the same religious background - but it is absolutely true to say that the vast majority of them do. > > Unless we can talk openly about these issues and the causes of the problems, we will continue to fail to tackle them properly.
There's a really strong correlation between sexual offences, including paedophilia, rape and assault, between violence, both organised and random, between terrorism, between domestic abuse, stalking... and one particular group in society.
Which group, I hear you ask?
Men.
So what are we going to do about the male problem? Let's talk openly so we can work out what we're going to do about all the men.
And let's not beat around the bush bringing other groups into it. This is the single biggest predictor for all the worst criminal justice and terrorism-related problems we face. Let's solve that issue first, shall we?
> @ah009 said: > > @oxfordsimon said: > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > Of course there is an issue with the ultras in a range of religions. But there is only one which has both threatened and used violence to enforce its view of the world and any analysis of this needs to take account of that sad fact. Because it leads to violence against those it targets: gay people, women, apostates, anyone who criticises them. > > > > I don't disagree at all - and just as with the issues with sexual exploitation of young people round the country by gangs, people have been lambasted for pointing out the correlation between membership of the gangs and the religious heritage of the participants. It isn't true to say that they all come from the same religious background - but it is absolutely true to say that the vast majority of them do. > > > > Unless we can talk openly about these issues and the causes of the problems, we will continue to fail to tackle them properly. > > There's a really strong correlation between sexual offences, including paedophilia, rape and assault, between violence, both organised and random, between terrorism, between domestic abuse, stalking... and one particular group in society. > > Which group, I hear you ask? > > Men. > > So what are we going to do about the male problem? Let's talk openly so we can work out what we're going to do about all the men. > > And let's not beat around the bush bringing other groups into it. This is the single biggest predictor for all the worst criminal justice and terrorism-related problems we face. Let's solve that issue first, shall we?
You seem obsessed with trying to divert attention to a whole range of other things rather than the topic under discussion.
> @oxfordsimon said: > You seem obsessed with trying to divert attention to a whole range of other things rather than the topic under discussion.
On the contrary, I'm trying to divert people from making dangerous generalisations. We've already seen one forum poster link homophobia with immigration, which is certainly open racism. Now we want to pretend that we are only seeking to have "difficult conversations" about a "real problem" with one group. Well, I've found a group that causes almost all of the problems. Only... whenever I point it out (and I have done this before), suddenly nobody wants to have those "difficult conversations". That's because a lot of the time "difficult conversations" are a cipher for lazily condemning a minority out-group.
I personally won't indulge any generalisations about Islam until we've dealt with the bigger problem, maleness. Or, if you can demonstrate there is a bigger correlation between a given group and all the problems of crime and terror, I'm happy to talk about whoever that is first instead.
> @kle4 said: > I never want to hear of Boris or Trump ever again. > > Boris will probably only be PM for long enough for the government to collapse over no deal, then however long it takes for the election to take place, so then you only have to worry about Corbyn being PM. > > (Unlikely on the polls, someone will say, and sure, but someone is going to end up cobbling together majority support in the House, and the choices there are pretty grim)
If the current polling trends continue it is more likely to be PM Farage or even PM Swinson or Davey than PM Corbyn if Boris falls flat
As someone said the other day, it's a bit funny how Andrea Leadsom is third favourite in the betting stakes when she only has 3 endorsements from Tory MPs in addition to herself.
I noticed on the radio that he had started calling it tactical voting; a phrase he didn’t use before the vote to justify his not voting Labour. But is voting for a different party because you prefer their policy really “tactical”? I don’t think so.
As someone said the other day, it's a bit funny how Andrea Leadsom is third favourite in the betting stakes when she only has 3 endorsements from Tory MPs in addition to herself.
It could be tactical wagering by a supporter to make her seem more popular than she is.
It could be money from punters who anticipate Leadsom coming through the middle when the other Leavers knock each other out. If this sounds far-fetched, remember it is precisely what happened last time.
It could be the market is just wrong and her price is held up only by accumulated liabilities.
BUT she is not third favourite, she is fourth favourite behind Johnson, Gove and Raab.
So in a market heavily skewed to hard leavers, she is the least likely of the plausible winners. Is the market wrong then? If there is a systemic market error, it is perhaps discounting the soft or reluctant leavers like Hunt, who is now out to 16/1 or more.
> @DecrepitJohnL said: > As someone said the other day, it's a bit funny how Andrea Leadsom is third favourite in the betting stakes when she only has 3 endorsements from Tory MPs in addition to herself. > > The Telegraph provides a handy graph of the odds movement for each candidate and it looks like Leadsom's price came in more-or-less immediately. > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/31/david-cameron-uses-memoirs-settle-scores-backstabbing-michael/ > > It could be tactical wagering by a supporter to make her seem more popular than she is. > > It could be money from punters who anticipate Leadsom coming through the middle when the other Leavers knock each other out. If this sounds far-fetched, remember it is precisely what happened last time. > > It could be the market is just wrong and her price is held up only by accumulated liabilities. > > BUT she is not third favourite, she is fourth favourite behind Johnson, Gove and Raab. > > So in a market heavily skewed to hard leavers, she is the least likely of the plausible winners. Is the market wrong then? If there is a systemic market error, it is perhaps discounting the soft or reluctant leavers like Hunt, who is now out to 16/1 or more.
She was third favourite on Betfair Exchange last time I checked. Interesting points though.
> @Cyclefree said: > > @isam said: > > > > @AndyJS said: > > > > > > > It's fascinating to watch this clash between Islamic values and Birmingham City Council. Newsnight led on it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Equality and educational integrity MUST win. We cannot give way to any religion in this dispute. > > > > > > It’s the Trojan Horse scandal again. If you allow mass immigration on the scale the UK has, it’s entirely predictable. Foreigners aren’t desperate to ‘become British’, they don’t think we are better than them, it was arrogant of the establishment to think otherwise. > > > > We are bigots for daring to suggest that the importation of bigots might not be a good thing. > > This whole row exposes the truth about ‘diversity’. Those who claim to want it actually just want people of different skin colours, or foreign sounding names, to all agree with western values > > When in Rome etc..... If you are born here then yes you should bloody well be Western and have Western values. And if you make the choice to come here then again, yes, you should bloody well adapt. If you want to live in an Islamic country well there are plenty to choose from. > > But don’t come here, become a citizen or resident, have children here and then demand that you should be able to opt out of the bits you don’t like..
It's not about western values, it's about human rights
> @IanB2 said: > > @isam said: > > Family Fortunes wrong answer noise > > > > https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1134469589201408001 > > I noticed on the radio that he had started calling it tactical voting; a phrase he didn’t use before the vote to justify his not voting Labour. But is voting for a different party because you prefer their policy really “tactical”? I don’t think so.
Agreed. Tactical voting is to stop another party that you dislike from winning
> @HYUFD said: > > @kle4 said: > > I never want to hear of Boris or Trump ever again. > > > > Boris will probably only be PM for long enough for the government to collapse over no deal, then however long it takes for the election to take place, so then you only have to worry about Corbyn being PM. > > > > (Unlikely on the polls, someone will say, and sure, but someone is going to end up cobbling together majority support in the House, and the choices there are pretty grim) > > If the current polling trends continue it is more likely to be PM Farage or even PM Swinson or Davey than PM Corbyn if Boris falls flat
I admire your dogged determination to continue supporting the Lying philanderer
> @DecrepitJohnL said: > As someone said the other day, it's a bit funny how Andrea Leadsom is third favourite in the betting stakes when she only has 3 endorsements from Tory MPs in addition to herself. > > The Telegraph provides a handy graph of the odds movement for each candidate and it looks like Leadsom's price came in more-or-less immediately. > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/31/david-cameron-uses-memoirs-settle-scores-backstabbing-michael/ > > It could be tactical wagering by a supporter to make her seem more popular than she is. > > It could be money from punters who anticipate Leadsom coming through the middle when the other Leavers knock each other out. If this sounds far-fetched, remember it is precisely what happened last time. > > It could be the market is just wrong and her price is held up only by accumulated liabilities. > > BUT she is not third favourite, she is fourth favourite behind Johnson, Gove and Raab. > > So in a market heavily skewed to hard leavers, she is the least likely of the plausible winners. Is the market wrong then? If there is a systemic market error, it is perhaps discounting the soft or reluctant leavers like Hunt, who is now out to 16/1 or more.
I've been laying her down to 14/1 as I don't see the rationale for her being any shorter.
Regarding Julia Hartley-Brewer at the GP conference, or any of the other non platformed speakers at Uni’s etc, why don’t the complainers just not attend?
What has rentagob got to say that is relevant to General Practice?
> @HYUFD said: > > @kle4 said: > > I never want to hear of Boris or Trump ever again. > > > > Boris will probably only be PM for long enough for the government to collapse over no deal, then however long it takes for the election to take place, so then you only have to worry about Corbyn being PM. > > > > (Unlikely on the polls, someone will say, and sure, but someone is going to end up cobbling together majority support in the House, and the choices there are pretty grim) > > If the current polling trends continue it is more likely to be PM Farage or even PM Swinson or Davey than PM Corbyn if Boris falls flat
It's hard to dislike Jo Swinson.
Still, I expect the LDs to overplay their hand at some point, and raise their pet hobby-horses of taking us into the euro and imposing STV.
> @kamski said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > > @isam said: > > > > > > @AndyJS said: > > > > > > > > > > > It's fascinating to watch this clash between Islamic values and Birmingham City Council. Newsnight led on it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Equality and educational integrity MUST win. We cannot give way to any religion in this dispute. > > > > > > > > > > It’s the Trojan Horse scandal again. If you allow mass immigration on the scale the UK has, it’s entirely predictable. Foreigners aren’t desperate to ‘become British’, they don’t think we are better than them, it was arrogant of the establishment to think otherwise. > > > > > > > > We are bigots for daring to suggest that the importation of bigots might not be a good thing. > > > > This whole row exposes the truth about ‘diversity’. Those who claim to want it actually just want people of different skin colours, or foreign sounding names, to all agree with western values > > > > When in Rome etc..... If you are born here then yes you should bloody well be Western and have Western values. And if you make the choice to come here then again, yes, you should bloody well adapt. If you want to live in an Islamic country well there are plenty to choose from. > > > > But don’t come here, become a citizen or resident, have children here and then demand that you should be able to opt out of the bits you don’t like.. > > It's not about western values, it's about human rights
> @ah009 said: > > @oxfordsimon said: > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > Of course there is an issue with the ultras in a range of religions. But there is only one which has both threatened and used violence to enforce its view of the world and any analysis of this needs to take account of that sad fact. Because it leads to violence against those it targets: gay people, women, apostates, anyone who criticises them. > > > > I don't disagree at all - and just as with the issues with sexual exploitation of young people round the country by gangs, people have been lambasted for pointing out the correlation between membership of the gangs and the religious heritage of the participants. It isn't true to say that they all come from the same religious background - but it is absolutely true to say that the vast majority of them do. > > > > Unless we can talk openly about these issues and the causes of the problems, we will continue to fail to tackle them properly. > > There's a really strong correlation between sexual offences, including paedophilia, rape and assault, between violence, both organised and random, between terrorism, between domestic abuse, stalking... and one particular group in society. > > Which group, I hear you ask? > > Men. > > So what are we going to do about the male problem? Let's talk openly so we can work out what we're going to do about all the men. > > And let's not beat around the bush bringing other groups into it. This is the single biggest predictor for all the worst criminal justice and terrorism-related problems we face. Let's solve that issue first, shall we?
That's pretty broad-brush. Men are, in aggregate, more violent than women, but violence by women tends to be very underreported.
> @ah009 said: > > @oxfordsimon said: > > You seem obsessed with trying to divert attention to a whole range of other things rather than the topic under discussion. > > On the contrary, I'm trying to divert people from making dangerous generalisations. We've already seen one forum poster link homophobia with immigration, which is certainly open racism. Now we want to pretend that we are only seeking to have "difficult conversations" about a "real problem" with one group. > Well, I've found a group that causes almost all of the problems. Only... whenever I point it out (and I have done this before), suddenly nobody wants to have those "difficult conversations". That's because a lot of the time "difficult conversations" are a cipher for lazily condemning a minority out-group. > > I personally won't indulge any generalisations about Islam until we've dealt with the bigger problem, maleness. > Or, if you can demonstrate there is a bigger correlation between a given group and all the problems of crime and terror, I'm happy to talk about whoever that is first instead.
> > It's fascinating to watch this clash between Islamic values and Birmingham City Council. Newsnight led on it.
>
> Equality and educational integrity MUST win. We cannot give way to any religion in this dispute.
It's not just Islam that has a problem here. It's also "mainstream" conservatism. The current and previous PMs voted against the repeal of Section 28.
It is not mainstream conservatives taking their children out of school or protesting against having gay teachers in school.
@oxfordsimon is right. This is a battle that must be fought and won. But the politicians who should be defending the schools and facing down the bullies are silent and cowardly.
Jess Phillips shows us the way. What would Jezza do?
Regardless of where you sit on the mainstream political spectrum our public discourse is better served by MP's like Jess Phillips tackling difficult issues head on, unlike others in their own party who wouldn't touch it with an oversized barge poll.
The government, such that it is, has also largely deafened us with silence on this issue. And then there is the rancid Ester McVey - a politician so keen to race to the bottom that she surely deserves to finish bottom in the Conservative leadership contest.
Mr. W, it was displeasing to see that whilst other Conservative MPs were quickly willing to slam McVey they'd appeared to maintain radio silence when it came to condemning those who'd espoused similar views for weeks beforehand. [Phillips, of course, did, but then, she's not a Conservative MP].
On-topic: this should harm Boris' chances. It might be that, as with the bus, his opponents overplay this and dilute the impact to nothing whilst failing to take the opportunity to remind the world what a shit Foreign Secretary he was.
> I noticed on the radio that he had started calling it tactical voting; a phrase he didn’t use before the vote to justify his not voting Labour. But is voting for a different party because you prefer their policy really “tactical”? I don’t think so.
Agreed. Tactical voting is to stop another party that you dislike from winning
Perhaps he has voted tactically on another occasion?
Though I think he sees it as a way of tactically voting against the Lexiteers.
Mr. W, it was displeasing to see that whilst other Conservative MPs were quickly willing to slam McVey they'd appeared to maintain radio silence when it came to condemning those who'd espoused similar views for weeks beforehand. [Phillips, of course, did, but then, she's not a Conservative MP].
On-topic: this should harm Boris' chances. It might be that, as with the bus, his opponents overplay this and dilute the impact to nothing whilst failing to take the opportunity to remind the world what a shit Foreign Secretary he was.
It is quite interesting to hear Tories lining up to defend teaching about LBGT parenting to 5 year olds. Not so long ago that would have been labelled as looney leftism.
I do wonder how much of their conversion to the cause of gay parenting is genuine, and how much of it is merely an excuse to bash dusky immigrants. The enemy of my enemy is my friend...
Mr. W, it was displeasing to see that whilst other Conservative MPs were quickly willing to slam McVey they'd appeared to maintain radio silence when it came to condemning those who'd espoused similar views for weeks beforehand. [Phillips, of course, did, but then, she's not a Conservative MP]."
It was a sign of Theresa May's weak position that when McVey deliberately misled Parliament, for which she was forced to apologize, that the PM failed to sack her.
Now McVey has the effrontery to offer herself to the nation as our next Prime Minister !!!!
> @Casino_Royale said: > > @DecrepitJohnL said: > > As someone said the other day, it's a bit funny how Andrea Leadsom is third favourite in the betting stakes when she only has 3 endorsements from Tory MPs in addition to herself. > > > > The Telegraph provides a handy graph of the odds movement for each candidate and it looks like Leadsom's price came in more-or-less immediately. > > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/31/david-cameron-uses-memoirs-settle-scores-backstabbing-michael/ > > > > It could be tactical wagering by a supporter to make her seem more popular than she is. > > > > It could be money from punters who anticipate Leadsom coming through the middle when the other Leavers knock each other out. If this sounds far-fetched, remember it is precisely what happened last time. > > > > It could be the market is just wrong and her price is held up only by accumulated liabilities. > > > > BUT she is not third favourite, she is fourth favourite behind Johnson, Gove and Raab. > > > > So in a market heavily skewed to hard leavers, she is the least likely of the plausible winners. Is the market wrong then? If there is a systemic market error, it is perhaps discounting the soft or reluctant leavers like Hunt, who is now out to 16/1 or more. > > I've been laying her down to 14/1 as I don't see the rationale for her being any shorter.
Nor do I, and I've stopped puzzling over it and am now laying her to the max.
Mr. Royale, the Lib Dems could overreach but they've got a great opportunity, and the risk of trying for too much is probably much lesser than the risk of failing to capitalise. It's a good but tricky problem for the new leader. Take a General Election. How many seats do they try and get (beyond paper candidates)?
> @Foxy said: > I don't see how Trump's endorsement helps Boris so it makes you wonder why he does it. > > Because he is an impulsive egomaniac with a big mouth and the diplomatic skills of a bull in a china shop? and Trump is the same...
Farage deserves to be ambassador. I'm thinking Mongolia and the delights of Ulan Bator during summertime. Farage might consider some "Rory Trekking" over the Gobi Desert too.
> > As someone said the other day, it's a bit funny how Andrea Leadsom is third favourite in the betting stakes when she only has 3 endorsements from Tory MPs in addition to herself.
> >
> > The Telegraph provides a handy graph of the odds movement for each candidate and it looks like Leadsom's price came in more-or-less immediately.
> > It could be tactical wagering by a supporter to make her seem more popular than she is.
> >
> > It could be money from punters who anticipate Leadsom coming through the middle when the other Leavers knock each other out. If this sounds far-fetched, remember it is precisely what happened last time.
> >
> > It could be the market is just wrong and her price is held up only by accumulated liabilities.
> >
> > BUT she is not third favourite, she is fourth favourite behind Johnson, Gove and Raab.
> >
> > So in a market heavily skewed to hard leavers, she is the least likely of the plausible winners. Is the market wrong then? If there is a systemic market error, it is perhaps discounting the soft or reluctant leavers like Hunt, who is now out to 16/1 or more.
>
> I've been laying her down to 14/1 as I don't see the rationale for her being any shorter.
Nor do I, and I've stopped puzzling over it and am now laying her to the max.
She has potential to be a John Major style compromise candidate, one who has risen without trace.
She has been a competent leader of the house, loyal to the leadership (a rarity, but something Tories used to value) and has the right background in the Leave campaign.
She will survive the early rounds, I think, and we will then see who gets the Stop Boris vote. It may well be her.
Shahmir Sanni. It was horrible. His family in Pakistan had to go into hiding.
I'm reading a bit more about May's contribution to the equal marriage legislation. I wasn't aware of the praise she'd received. In fact, I was under the impression she's voted against it as she had with the Section 28 repeal. I might have been a little too harsh on her in that light, and perhaps she has changed since the early 2000s. Still, the Sanni case is deeply troubling. If she wasn't behind Parkinson doing what he did, she should have fired him. She didn't.
It was an intrinsic part of Parkinson’s defence that he and Shahmir had been in a relationship. Should he not have been allowed to defend himself?
> @Foxy said: > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > > @DecrepitJohnL said: > > > > As someone said the other day, it's a bit funny how Andrea Leadsom is third favourite in the betting stakes when she only has 3 endorsements from Tory MPs in addition to herself. > > > > > > > > The Telegraph provides a handy graph of the odds movement for each candidate and it looks like Leadsom's price came in more-or-less immediately. > > > > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/31/david-cameron-uses-memoirs-settle-scores-backstabbing-michael/ > > > > > > > > It could be tactical wagering by a supporter to make her seem more popular than she is. > > > > > > > > It could be money from punters who anticipate Leadsom coming through the middle when the other Leavers knock each other out. If this sounds far-fetched, remember it is precisely what happened last time. > > > > > > > > It could be the market is just wrong and her price is held up only by accumulated liabilities. > > > > > > > > BUT she is not third favourite, she is fourth favourite behind Johnson, Gove and Raab. > > > > > > > > So in a market heavily skewed to hard leavers, she is the least likely of the plausible winners. Is the market wrong then? If there is a systemic market error, it is perhaps discounting the soft or reluctant leavers like Hunt, who is now out to 16/1 or more. > > > > > > I've been laying her down to 14/1 as I don't see the rationale for her being any shorter. > > > > Nor do I, and I've stopped puzzling over it and am now laying her to the max. > > She has potential to be a John Major style compromise candidate, one who has risen without trace. > > She has been a competent leader of the house, loyal to the leadership (a rarity, but something Tories used to value) and has the right background in the Leave campaign. > > She will survive the early rounds, I think, and we will then see who gets the Stop Boris vote. It may well be her.
If she were a compromise candidate she'd be getting more than 2 MPs backing her, half what very late entrants into the race (like Mark Harper and Kit Malthouse) are getting. Gove is that candidate, not her.
It's possible all Brexiters rally around her if both Boris Johnson *and* Dominic Raab fall out of the race, getting her to the final round, but I'd say Esther McVey has a better chance of that and no baggage from last time.
I'm not backing Leadsom south of 15/1 and maybe even not south of 20/1.
> @Sean_F said: > > @kamski said: > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > @isam said: > > > > > > > > @AndyJS said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's fascinating to watch this clash between Islamic values and Birmingham City Council. Newsnight led on it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Equality and educational integrity MUST win. We cannot give way to any religion in this dispute. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It’s the Trojan Horse scandal again. If you allow mass immigration on the scale the UK has, it’s entirely predictable. Foreigners aren’t desperate to ‘become British’, they don’t think we are better than them, it was arrogant of the establishment to think otherwise. > > > > > > > > > > > > We are bigots for daring to suggest that the importation of bigots might not be a good thing. > > > > > > This whole row exposes the truth about ‘diversity’. Those who claim to want it actually just want people of different skin colours, or foreign sounding names, to all agree with western values > > > > > > When in Rome etc..... If you are born here then yes you should bloody well be Western and have Western values. And if you make the choice to come here then again, yes, you should bloody well adapt. If you want to live in an Islamic country well there are plenty to choose from. > > > > > > But don’t come here, become a citizen or resident, have children here and then demand that you should be able to opt out of the bits you don’t like.. > > > > It's not about western values, it's about human rights > > Voting power trumps human rights, in the end.
That much is clear from politics over recent years.
> @ah009 said: > > @dixiedean said: > > Fortunately she's done. The battle for what comes next is on right now. > > She should never have been there in the first place. > And the favourite for her successor is clearly a racist too. It's remarkable how tolerant the Conservative Party is of all this. They can't even be trusted to elect someone with even the most basic ethical standards, let alone defend teachers who are being attacked by bigots. > And before we go on, yes I'm fully aware that the same can be said for Corbyn. And Farron. What a fucking mess.
As everyone on here knows I have little time for Farron - the harm he has done to south Lakeland is beyond measure. BUT, without question he is not homophobic.
> @Casino_Royale said: > > @Foxy said: > > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > > > > @DecrepitJohnL said: > > > > > > As someone said the other day, it's a bit funny how Andrea Leadsom is third favourite in the betting stakes when she only has 3 endorsements from Tory MPs in addition to herself. > > > > > > > > > > > > The Telegraph provides a handy graph of the odds movement for each candidate and it looks like Leadsom's price came in more-or-less immediately. > > > > > > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/31/david-cameron-uses-memoirs-settle-scores-backstabbing-michael/ > > > > > > > > > > > > It could be tactical wagering by a supporter to make her seem more popular than she is. > > > > > > > > > > > > It could be money from punters who anticipate Leadsom coming through the middle when the other Leavers knock each other out. If this sounds far-fetched, remember it is precisely what happened last time. > > > > > > > > > > > > It could be the market is just wrong and her price is held up only by accumulated liabilities. > > > > > > > > > > > > BUT she is not third favourite, she is fourth favourite behind Johnson, Gove and Raab. > > > > > > > > > > > > So in a market heavily skewed to hard leavers, she is the least likely of the plausible winners. Is the market wrong then? If there is a systemic market error, it is perhaps discounting the soft or reluctant leavers like Hunt, who is now out to 16/1 or more. > > > > > > > > > > I've been laying her down to 14/1 as I don't see the rationale for her being any shorter. > > > > > > > > Nor do I, and I've stopped puzzling over it and am now laying her to the max. > > > > She has potential to be a John Major style compromise candidate, one who has risen without trace. > > > > She has been a competent leader of the house, loyal to the leadership (a rarity, but something Tories used to value) and has the right background in the Leave campaign. > > > > She will survive the early rounds, I think, and we will then see who gets the Stop Boris vote. It may well be her. > > If she were a compromise candidate she'd be getting more than 2 MPs backing her, half what very late entrants into the race (like Mark Harper and Kit Malthouse) are getting. Gove is that candidate, not her. > > It's possible all Brexiters rally around her if both Boris Johnson *and* Dominic Raab fall out of the race, getting her to the final round, but I'd say Esther McVey has a better chance of that and no baggage from last time. > > I'm not backing Leadsom south of 15/1 and maybe even not south of 20/1.
There's also the risk that, perhaps like last time, Leadsom doesn't want to be PM. She wants to be offered Chancellor or some other top job.
"As everyone on here knows I have little time for Farron - the harm he has done to south Lakeland is beyond measure. BUT, without question he is not homophobic."
Not sure why the inane witterings about British politics of an elderly American reality TV performer get reported, let alone form the subject of a header on this august and estimable blog.
The book seems so completely innocuous that the protesters are being ridiculous.
It would be good if the entire book were made available on the web, so everyone could see this.
For a start, it would help Dullard Roger Godsiff, the Labour MP for Hall Green, who seems to think it is a gay sex manual for 3 year olds.
Godsiff has admitted he hasn't read the book.
The protests are about more than a particular book. It’s about a group thinking that their religion should allow them to opt out of being taught about the laws of this country, should allow them to opt out of following the laws of this country, should allow them to stop others (gay teachers) working freely, should allow them to harass and frighten others.
It’s the same issue which arose in the Honeyford case, in the Rushdie fatwa, in the Danish cartoons case etc - about a religious group seeking to opt out of the law, about using a false claim to human rights (the parents’ rights are not being infringed since there is nothing stopping them teaching their religion to their children) as a way of limiting the human rights of others.
No. If you live here, you follow our laws. This should not even be up for discussion or debate. British children - which these children are - need to be taught about the laws, rules and values of our society and their human right to have a proper education should not be infringed or limited, not even by their parents.
Firstly, I'm pro-the school and anti-the protesters - who in many cases are being utterly nonsensical. I'd also have no problem with my son (nearly five) being taught about such topics: after all, his school has many families with different lifestyles and arrangements from the 'normal' mum-and-dad ones - and not just based on sexuality. Single parents are another example where society can be less than accepting. And I'm a stay-at-home dad, whilst my wife works.
The lesson is a broad one: 'different' does not automatically equate to 'bad' or 'wrong'.
There was some comment that local Labour MP Roger Godsiff was criticising the school's content without having read it. I have a little caution that I haven't read it either (is it available to download online?), so cannot blindly say that it is teaching the topic in a good way. However, the more vocal protesters are frankly against the topic being taught, rather than these specific materials.
Also, when talking about the cultures, we should remember that our own 'culture' has been on somewhat of a journey over the last four or five decades - and that some of the views being expressed by the protesters would have been much more acceptable twenty or thirty decades ago. Views and acceptability change: and ours have moved on in what is (IMO) a positive direction.
For instance, Tim Farron might well be nearer the protesters' view than the PB consensus - and he was Lib Dem leader a couple of years ago!
> There was some comment that local Labour MP Roger Godsiff was criticising the school's content without having read it. I have a little caution that I haven't read it either (is it available to download online?), so cannot blindly say that it is teaching the topic in a good way. However, the more vocal protesters are frankly against the topic being taught, rather than these specific materials. >
------
It seems it has some characters like a dog who doesn't fit in, or a boy who wants to be a mermaid. There is a brief description here
> > I wholeheartedly agree that the government should be facing it down. I don't think it's just cowardice, though. The last two PMs have been openly homophobic within their political careers. The silence can just as easily be attributed to tacit agreement.
> > Also, we have bigots right here and how many are calling it out? Few. Same reasons? Fuck knows. But I've had it all my life, so no surprises.
>
> There is no denying that May voted against pro-LGBT+ legislation earlier in her career - but she has evolved in her views over the years and is now far more of an ally than she was before.
>
> It is right to acknowledge when people do move away from previously objectionable views towards more inclusive opinions. We are all capable of change.
I will accept that if you'd been talking about Cameron. He apologised and, to the best of my knowledge has not exhibited any homophobia in many years.
Theresa May's office outed a gay man last year in revenge for blowing the whistle on illegalities in a political campaign. She kept him on. She's not learned a damn thing, and I say she is still a homophobe.
What is the case you mention?
I have little time for May. But she did push through gay marriage and I believe one of her junior Lib Dem Ministers praised her for her work on it. So perhaps a bit of a mixed bag in her approach. Still her silence on this - and, worse, the silence of the Education Secretary and the Equalities Minister - has been quite disgraceful.
> @Foxy said: > > @oxfordsimon said: > > > > @AndyJS said: > > > > It's fascinating to watch this clash between Islamic values and Birmingham City Council. Newsnight led on it. > > > > > > Equality and educational integrity MUST win. We cannot give way to any religion in this dispute. > > > > It's not just Islam that has a problem here. It's also "mainstream" conservatism. The current and previous PMs voted against the repeal of Section 28. > > It is not mainstream conservatives taking their children out of school or protesting against having gay teachers in school. > > @oxfordsimon is right. This is a battle that must be fought and won. But the politicians who should be defending the schools and facing down the bullies are silent and cowardly. > > Jess Phillips shows us the way. What would Jezza do? > > https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1130418708910882817
Jezza will say nothing against the Muslim community. He needs their votes. If it was just Fundamentalist Christians......
> @Cyclefree said: > The protests concern a particular book. > > > > The book seems so completely innocuous that the protesters are being ridiculous. > > > > It would be good if the entire book were made available on the web, so everyone could see this. > > > > For a start, it would help Dullard Roger Godsiff, the Labour MP for Hall Green, who seems to think it is a gay sex manual for 3 year olds. > > > > Godsiff has admitted he hasn't read the book. > > The protests are about more than a particular book. It’s about a group thinking that their religion should allow them to opt out of being taught about the laws of this country, should allow them to opt out of following the laws of this country, should allow them to stop others (gay teachers) working freely, should allow them to harass and frighten others. > > It’s the same issue which arose in the Honeyford case, in the Rushdie fatwa, in the Danish cartoons case etc - about a religious group seeking to opt out of the law, about using a false claim to human rights (the parents’ rights are not being infringed since there is nothing stopping them teaching their religion to their children) as a way of limiting the human rights of others. > > No. If you live here, you follow our laws. This should not even be up for discussion or debate. British children - which these children are - need to be taught about the laws, rules and values of our society and their human right to have a proper education should not be infringed or limited, not even by their parents.
What law are they opting out of? Is the book on the national curriculum?
The protests are about more than a particular book. It’s about a group thinking that...
Careful. If by "a group" posters mean the protesters, that is one thing. If by "a group" posters include all their co-religionists then that would, mutatis mutandis, fall foul of the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
Firstly, I'm pro-the school and anti-the protesters - who in many cases are being utterly nonsensical. I'd also have no problem with my son (nearly five) being taught about such topics: after all, his school has many families with different lifestyles and arrangements from the 'normal' mum-and-dad ones - and not just based on sexuality. Single parents are another example where society can be less than accepting. And I'm a stay-at-home dad, whilst my wife works.
The lesson is a broad one: 'different' does not automatically equate to 'bad' or 'wrong'.
There was some comment that local Labour MP Roger Godsiff was criticising the school's content without having read it. I have a little caution that I haven't read it either (is it available to download online?), so cannot blindly say that it is teaching the topic in a good way. However, the more vocal protesters are frankly against the topic being taught, rather than these specific materials.
Also, when talking about the cultures, we should remember that our own 'culture' has been on somewhat of a journey over the last four or five decades - and that some of the views being expressed by the protesters would have been much more acceptable twenty or thirty decades ago. Views and acceptability change: and ours have moved on in what is (IMO) a positive direction.
For instance, Tim Farron might well be nearer the protesters' view than the PB consensus - and he was Lib Dem leader a couple of years ago!
It is precisely because our own society has been on a journey on these issue that we need to hold firm now not back down. If we believe in inalienable human rights ie that all people are equal then this is not something that we abandon for some people. Sometimes there is no compromise available: either you accept equality for LGBQT people or not. Our society does and therefore the parents who don’t will have to back down. It makes a nonsense of equality or of human rights to say that they are contingent on the personal views of some self-selected group.
The protests are about more than a particular book. It’s about a group thinking that...
Careful. If by "a group" posters mean the protesters, that is one thing. If by "a group" posters include all their co-religionists then that would, mutatis mutandis, fall foul of the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
The group is the group of protestors, those behind them, who have an agenda - there is some evidence that Hizb-ut-Tahrir is involved. And it includes those from other religions who are also, less noisily, objecting to lessons against bullying.
> The book seems so completely innocuous that the protesters are being ridiculous.
>
>
>
> It would be good if the entire book were made available on the web, so everyone could see this.
>
>
>
> For a start, it would help Dullard Roger Godsiff, the Labour MP for Hall Green, who seems to think it is a gay sex manual for 3 year olds.
>
>
>
> Godsiff has admitted he hasn't read the book.
>
> The protests are about more than a particular book. It’s about a group thinking that their religion should allow them to opt out of being taught about the laws of this country, should allow them to opt out of following the laws of this country, should allow them to stop others (gay teachers) working freely, should allow them to harass and frighten others.
>
> It’s the same issue which arose in the Honeyford case, in the Rushdie fatwa, in the Danish cartoons case etc - about a religious group seeking to opt out of the law, about using a false claim to human rights (the parents’ rights are not being infringed since there is nothing stopping them teaching their religion to their children) as a way of limiting the human rights of others.
>
> No. If you live here, you follow our laws. This should not even be up for discussion or debate. British children - which these children are - need to be taught about the laws, rules and values of our society and their human right to have a proper education should not be infringed or limited, not even by their parents.
What law are they opting out of? Is the book on the national curriculum?
Equality laws. Laws which do not permit discrimination against people on the grounds of sexuality. According to reports, some of the protestors object to gay people even teaching their children.
While Trump’s comments about Boris are certainly harmful (worth reading the entire transcript), what really surprised me was his calling Meghan, Countess of Dumbarton, “nasty”.
Foreign heads of state praising, or criticising, official candidates to be the next prime minister are one thing. But a direct attack on a senior member of the royal family? Ouch!
While Trump’s comments about Boris are certainly harmful (worth reading the entire transcript), what really surprised me was his calling Meghan, Countess of Dumbarton, “nasty”.
Foreign heads of state praising, or criticising, official candidates to be the next prime minister are one thing. But a direct attack on a senior member of the royal family? Ouch!
Just why does a sexual predator who hangs out with white supremacists and colludes with the Russians want Boris Johnson to be Prime Minister? It’s a toughie, isn’t it?
Like others, I don’t see why Andrea Leadsom is so short-priced. I thought she stood a good chance but she manifestly hasn’t taken off. I’ve switched from backing to laying her accordingly.
> @AlastairMeeks said: > Like others, I don’t see why Andrea Leadsom is so short-priced. I thought she stood a good chance but she manifestly hasn’t taken off. I’ve switched from backing to laying her accordingly.
Is it not obvious: one of her supporters has whacked on a lump of cash to hype her chances.
An old LD trick. Next she’ll be using “creative” bar charts.
Mr. Meeks, Leadsom's short price does seem a bit odd.
Things in her favour I can think of, to try and explain it: 1) Loyal to the leadership, until the point of no return when she resigned 2) Apparently competent at her role as leader of the house 3) Potential compromise candidate (although there might only be room for one of those and Gove/Hunt could end up with the job)
Also, not checked the odds today but was amused yesterday that Mordaunt had shorter odds than Javid despite not having declared she was standing.
> @Cyclefree said: > Re Mike’s header. > > > > While Trump’s comments about Boris are certainly harmful (worth reading the entire transcript), what really surprised me was his calling Meghan, Countess of Dumbarton, “nasty”. > > > > Foreign heads of state praising, or criticising, official candidates to be the next prime minister are one thing. But a direct attack on a senior member of the royal family? Ouch! > > He is an oaf without any manners.
If only the oafs had stayed loyal to their impeccably polite English masters in 1776. It must be independence that makes them so oafish.
Firstly, I'm pro-the school and anti-the protesters - who in many cases are being utterly nonsensical. I'd also have no problem with my son (nearly five) being taught about such topics: after all, his school has many families with different lifestyles and arrangements from the 'normal' mum-and-dad ones - and not just based on sexuality. Single parents are another example where society can be less than accepting. And I'm a stay-at-home dad, whilst my wife works.
The lesson is a broad one: 'different' does not automatically equate to 'bad' or 'wrong'.
There was some comment that local Labour MP Roger Godsiff was criticising the school's content without having read it. I have a little caution that I haven't read it either (is it available to download online?), so cannot blindly say that it is teaching the topic in a good way. However, the more vocal protesters are frankly against the topic being taught, rather than these specific materials.
Also, when talking about the cultures, we should remember that our own 'culture' has been on somewhat of a journey over the last four or five decades - and that some of the views being expressed by the protesters would have been much more acceptable twenty or thirty decades ago. Views and acceptability change: and ours have moved on in what is (IMO) a positive direction.
For instance, Tim Farron might well be nearer the protesters' view than the PB consensus - and he was Lib Dem leader a couple of years ago!
It is precisely because our own society has been on a journey on these issue that we need to hold firm now not back down. If we believe in inalienable human rights ie that all people are equal then this is not something that we abandon for some people. Sometimes there is no compromise available: either you accept equality for LGBQT people or not. Our society does and therefore the parents who don’t will have to back down. It makes a nonsense of equality or of human rights to say that they are contingent on the personal views of some self-selected group.
I agree.
However I'd also add the same applies to all hatred, not just LGBQTII (*). This is why objections to the term 'Islamaphobia' and the brain-dead 'Islam is not a race!' argument are IMV unsupportable.
We should not pick and choose the hatreds we want to condemn.
(*) Whatever the term's meant to be today: I just saw a BBC article that added '2S' to the front to make '2SLGBTQQIA', which apparently means '2-spirit'. Although it's in a Canadian context, I've no idea what it means.
> @nico67 said: > The funniest thing about the Trump article . Allegedly other leadership candidates were begging for his endorsement !
Reminds me of when Cameron spent to much effort begging Obama et al to condemn Scottish independence. Why can’t folk just rely on the strength of their own arguments and their own debating skills? Oh... yes... of course... I see why.
Islamophobia (leaving aside the overuse of 'phobia' is as daft as that of 'denier') is about Islam, which is an idea. I entirely condemn anti-Muslim bigotry, and entirely support the right for any idea, especially religious ones, to be scrutinised, mocked, insulted, or subjected to intellectual inquiry.
Islamophobia is a foolish term precisely because it covers both of those things, one wretched, one essential in a free society.
There was a story on Look North (local news in this area) a few months ago about animals not been stunned prior to halal slaughter. There was widespread condemnation but one of those arguing against the condemnation accused those on the other side of having a 'political agenda'. There's a very real risk of people foolishly allowing us to slide into the realm of being unable to criticise or disagree with aspects of Islam simply because it's deemed 'hateful'.
The creed of cultural sensitivity has a lot to answer for. We should defend key tenets of British culture with vigour. Freedom of expression, religion, and sexuality are not small things we should throw on the bonfire of political correctness, but vital parts of a free and fair society.
> @Charles said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > > What is the case you mention? > > > > Shahmir Sanni. It was horrible. His family in Pakistan had to go into hiding. > > I'm reading a bit more about May's contribution to the equal marriage legislation. I wasn't aware of the praise she'd received. In fact, I was under the impression she's voted against it as she had with the Section 28 repeal. I might have been a little too harsh on her in that light, and perhaps she has changed since the early 2000s. Still, the Sanni case is deeply troubling. If she wasn't behind Parkinson doing what he did, she should have fired him. She didn't. > > It was an intrinsic part of Parkinson’s defence that he and Shahmir had been in a relationship. Should he not have been allowed to defend himself?
Comments
> > @Cyclefree said:
>
> > > @oxfordsimon said:
>
> >
>
> > > > @AndyJS said:
>
> >
>
> > > > It's fascinating to watch this clash between Islamic values and Birmingham City Council. Newsnight led on it.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Equality and educational integrity MUST win. We cannot give way to any religion in this dispute.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > It's not just Islam that has a problem here. It's also "mainstream" conservatism. The current and previous PMs voted against the repeal of Section 28.
>
> >
>
> > It is not mainstream conservatives taking their children out of school or protesting against having gay teachers in school.
>
> >
>
> > @oxfordsimon is right. This is a battle that must be fought and won. But the politicians who should be defending the schools and facing down the bullies are silent and cowardly.
>
>
>
> I wholeheartedly agree that the government should be facing it down. I don't think it's just cowardice, though. The last two PMs have been openly homophobic within their political careers. The silence can just as easily be attributed to tacit agreement.
>
>
>
> Also, we have bigots right here and how many are calling it out? Few. Same reasons? Fuck knows. But I've had it all my life, so no surprises.
>
> You may well be right that there is tacit agreement. There is open agreement by some eg that ghastly McVey woman.
>
> But I do think there is a large element of cowardice. A fear of being called racist or islamophobic and a fear that the protestors might use violence. After all we’ve had violence threatened and used against those who write or draw something that Muslims don’t like. And when that happened people bent over backwards to criticise the authors and the cartoonists for being offensive etc after a few ritual condemnations of the violence.
>
> It shows that for all the talk people don’t really care enough about equality for gay people or free speech. And that gets me really mad. This stuff matters.
Yes it really does.
We have been spineless and continue to be so.
> What is the case you mention?
Shahmir Sanni. It was horrible. His family in Pakistan had to go into hiding.
I'm reading a bit more about May's contribution to the equal marriage legislation. I wasn't aware of the praise she'd received. In fact, I was under the impression she's voted against it as she had with the Section 28 repeal. I might have been a little too harsh on her in that light, and perhaps she has changed since the early 2000s. Still, the Sanni case is deeply troubling. If she wasn't behind Parkinson doing what he did, she should have fired him. She didn't.
May doesn’t matter. But her successors do. And I see no-one in public life - other than Jess Phillips - prepared to stand up to bullies. It is both sad and worrying. If I felt that my article might help I would send it to her and others. Sod it, I might do it anyway.
We need commentators speaking up about this stuff and putting pressure on the bullies and showing the teachers and the schools and gay people that we’re on their side, that we will stand up for them and with them.
> We need commentators speaking up about this stuff and putting pressure on the bullies and showing the teachers and the schools and gay people that we’re on their side, that we will stand up for them and with them.
I am part of the core team of Pride in London and will be asking what we will be doing to support the schools during this fight at our team meeting in the morning.
> But there is only one which has both threatened and used violence to enforce its view of the world and any analysis of this needs to take account of that sad fact.
That's not even slightly true. There are terrorist attacks by fundamentalists of all religions. Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, Jews. All have used violence in the furtherance of their religion or the suppression of other religions. Indeed, secular attacks on the religious, and vice versa, are commonplace too.
The recent prevalence of Islamist terror is partially real and partially the result of differential focus. But there's nothing fundamentally more violent about Muslims than any other religious group. In the same way that left-wing violence was more prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s and now right-wing violence is ascendant. It's not intrinsic, it's the result of circumstances.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1134613543813287936
But given he's also criticising the nation's favourite new mum, may not help much....
> > @Cyclefree said:
> > Of course there is an issue with the ultras in a range of religions. But there is only one which has both threatened and used violence to enforce its view of the world and any analysis of this needs to take account of that sad fact. Because it leads to violence against those it targets: gay people, women, apostates, anyone who criticises them.
>
> I don't disagree at all - and just as with the issues with sexual exploitation of young people round the country by gangs, people have been lambasted for pointing out the correlation between membership of the gangs and the religious heritage of the participants. It isn't true to say that they all come from the same religious background - but it is absolutely true to say that the vast majority of them do.
>
> Unless we can talk openly about these issues and the causes of the problems, we will continue to fail to tackle them properly.
There's a really strong correlation between sexual offences, including paedophilia, rape and assault, between violence, both organised and random, between terrorism, between domestic abuse, stalking... and one particular group in society.
Which group, I hear you ask?
Men.
So what are we going to do about the male problem? Let's talk openly so we can work out what we're going to do about all the men.
And let's not beat around the bush bringing other groups into it. This is the single biggest predictor for all the worst criminal justice and terrorism-related problems we face. Let's solve that issue first, shall we?
> > @oxfordsimon said:
> > > @Cyclefree said:
> > > Of course there is an issue with the ultras in a range of religions. But there is only one which has both threatened and used violence to enforce its view of the world and any analysis of this needs to take account of that sad fact. Because it leads to violence against those it targets: gay people, women, apostates, anyone who criticises them.
> >
> > I don't disagree at all - and just as with the issues with sexual exploitation of young people round the country by gangs, people have been lambasted for pointing out the correlation between membership of the gangs and the religious heritage of the participants. It isn't true to say that they all come from the same religious background - but it is absolutely true to say that the vast majority of them do.
> >
> > Unless we can talk openly about these issues and the causes of the problems, we will continue to fail to tackle them properly.
>
> There's a really strong correlation between sexual offences, including paedophilia, rape and assault, between violence, both organised and random, between terrorism, between domestic abuse, stalking... and one particular group in society.
>
> Which group, I hear you ask?
>
> Men.
>
> So what are we going to do about the male problem? Let's talk openly so we can work out what we're going to do about all the men.
>
> And let's not beat around the bush bringing other groups into it. This is the single biggest predictor for all the worst criminal justice and terrorism-related problems we face. Let's solve that issue first, shall we?
You seem obsessed with trying to divert attention to a whole range of other things rather than the topic under discussion.
> You seem obsessed with trying to divert attention to a whole range of other things rather than the topic under discussion.
On the contrary, I'm trying to divert people from making dangerous generalisations. We've already seen one forum poster link homophobia with immigration, which is certainly open racism. Now we want to pretend that we are only seeking to have "difficult conversations" about a "real problem" with one group.
Well, I've found a group that causes almost all of the problems. Only... whenever I point it out (and I have done this before), suddenly nobody wants to have those "difficult conversations". That's because a lot of the time "difficult conversations" are a cipher for lazily condemning a minority out-group.
I personally won't indulge any generalisations about Islam until we've dealt with the bigger problem, maleness.
Or, if you can demonstrate there is a bigger correlation between a given group and all the problems of crime and terror, I'm happy to talk about whoever that is first instead.
> I never want to hear of Boris or Trump ever again.
>
> Boris will probably only be PM for long enough for the government to collapse over no deal, then however long it takes for the election to take place, so then you only have to worry about Corbyn being PM.
>
> (Unlikely on the polls, someone will say, and sure, but someone is going to end up cobbling together majority support in the House, and the choices there are pretty grim)
If the current polling trends continue it is more likely to be PM Farage or even PM Swinson or Davey than PM Corbyn if Boris falls flat
However he said Gove was wrong to criticise his administration for 'sabre rattling' over Iran
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48478706
> https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1134610761983102976?s=20
I think I'd rather cut my wrists.
> Family Fortunes wrong answer noise
>
> https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1134469589201408001
I noticed on the radio that he had started calling it tactical voting; a phrase he didn’t use before the vote to justify his not voting Labour. But is voting for a different party because you prefer their policy really “tactical”? I don’t think so.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/31/david-cameron-uses-memoirs-settle-scores-backstabbing-michael/
It could be tactical wagering by a supporter to make her seem more popular than she is.
It could be money from punters who anticipate Leadsom coming through the middle when the other Leavers knock each other out. If this sounds far-fetched, remember it is precisely what happened last time.
It could be the market is just wrong and her price is held up only by accumulated liabilities.
BUT she is not third favourite, she is fourth favourite behind Johnson, Gove and Raab.
So in a market heavily skewed to hard leavers, she is the least likely of the plausible winners. Is the market wrong then? If there is a systemic market error, it is perhaps discounting the soft or reluctant leavers like Hunt, who is now out to 16/1 or more.
> As someone said the other day, it's a bit funny how Andrea Leadsom is third favourite in the betting stakes when she only has 3 endorsements from Tory MPs in addition to herself.
>
> The Telegraph provides a handy graph of the odds movement for each candidate and it looks like Leadsom's price came in more-or-less immediately.
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/31/david-cameron-uses-memoirs-settle-scores-backstabbing-michael/
>
> It could be tactical wagering by a supporter to make her seem more popular than she is.
>
> It could be money from punters who anticipate Leadsom coming through the middle when the other Leavers knock each other out. If this sounds far-fetched, remember it is precisely what happened last time.
>
> It could be the market is just wrong and her price is held up only by accumulated liabilities.
>
> BUT she is not third favourite, she is fourth favourite behind Johnson, Gove and Raab.
>
> So in a market heavily skewed to hard leavers, she is the least likely of the plausible winners. Is the market wrong then? If there is a systemic market error, it is perhaps discounting the soft or reluctant leavers like Hunt, who is now out to 16/1 or more.
She was third favourite on Betfair Exchange last time I checked. Interesting points though.
> > @isam said:
>
> > > @AndyJS said:
>
> >
>
> > > It's fascinating to watch this clash between Islamic values and Birmingham City Council. Newsnight led on it.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Equality and educational integrity MUST win. We cannot give way to any religion in this dispute.
>
> >
>
> > It’s the Trojan Horse scandal again. If you allow mass immigration on the scale the UK has, it’s entirely predictable. Foreigners aren’t desperate to ‘become British’, they don’t think we are better than them, it was arrogant of the establishment to think otherwise.
>
>
>
> We are bigots for daring to suggest that the importation of bigots might not be a good thing.
>
> This whole row exposes the truth about ‘diversity’. Those who claim to want it actually just want people of different skin colours, or foreign sounding names, to all agree with western values
>
> When in Rome etc..... If you are born here then yes you should bloody well be Western and have Western values. And if you make the choice to come here then again, yes, you should bloody well adapt. If you want to live in an Islamic country well there are plenty to choose from.
>
> But don’t come here, become a citizen or resident, have children here and then demand that you should be able to opt out of the bits you don’t like..
It's not about western values, it's about human rights
> > @isam said:
> > Family Fortunes wrong answer noise
> >
> > https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1134469589201408001
>
> I noticed on the radio that he had started calling it tactical voting; a phrase he didn’t use before the vote to justify his not voting Labour. But is voting for a different party because you prefer their policy really “tactical”? I don’t think so.
Agreed. Tactical voting is to stop another party that you dislike from winning
> > @kle4 said:
> > I never want to hear of Boris or Trump ever again.
> >
> > Boris will probably only be PM for long enough for the government to collapse over no deal, then however long it takes for the election to take place, so then you only have to worry about Corbyn being PM.
> >
> > (Unlikely on the polls, someone will say, and sure, but someone is going to end up cobbling together majority support in the House, and the choices there are pretty grim)
>
> If the current polling trends continue it is more likely to be PM Farage or even PM Swinson or Davey than PM Corbyn if Boris falls flat
I admire your dogged determination to continue supporting the Lying philanderer
> As someone said the other day, it's a bit funny how Andrea Leadsom is third favourite in the betting stakes when she only has 3 endorsements from Tory MPs in addition to herself.
>
> The Telegraph provides a handy graph of the odds movement for each candidate and it looks like Leadsom's price came in more-or-less immediately.
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/31/david-cameron-uses-memoirs-settle-scores-backstabbing-michael/
>
> It could be tactical wagering by a supporter to make her seem more popular than she is.
>
> It could be money from punters who anticipate Leadsom coming through the middle when the other Leavers knock each other out. If this sounds far-fetched, remember it is precisely what happened last time.
>
> It could be the market is just wrong and her price is held up only by accumulated liabilities.
>
> BUT she is not third favourite, she is fourth favourite behind Johnson, Gove and Raab.
>
> So in a market heavily skewed to hard leavers, she is the least likely of the plausible winners. Is the market wrong then? If there is a systemic market error, it is perhaps discounting the soft or reluctant leavers like Hunt, who is now out to 16/1 or more.
I've been laying her down to 14/1 as I don't see the rationale for her being any shorter.
> Steve Baker is still considering a leadership bid:
>
> https://twitter.com/SteveBakerHW/status/1134537560691290112
"If I stand, I stand to win...a fair bit by betting against myself."
> > @kle4 said:
> > I never want to hear of Boris or Trump ever again.
> >
> > Boris will probably only be PM for long enough for the government to collapse over no deal, then however long it takes for the election to take place, so then you only have to worry about Corbyn being PM.
> >
> > (Unlikely on the polls, someone will say, and sure, but someone is going to end up cobbling together majority support in the House, and the choices there are pretty grim)
>
> If the current polling trends continue it is more likely to be PM Farage or even PM Swinson or Davey than PM Corbyn if Boris falls flat
It's hard to dislike Jo Swinson.
Still, I expect the LDs to overplay their hand at some point, and raise their pet hobby-horses of taking us into the euro and imposing STV.
> > @Cyclefree said:
> > > @isam said:
> >
> > > > @AndyJS said:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > It's fascinating to watch this clash between Islamic values and Birmingham City Council. Newsnight led on it.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Equality and educational integrity MUST win. We cannot give way to any religion in this dispute.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > It’s the Trojan Horse scandal again. If you allow mass immigration on the scale the UK has, it’s entirely predictable. Foreigners aren’t desperate to ‘become British’, they don’t think we are better than them, it was arrogant of the establishment to think otherwise.
> >
> >
> >
> > We are bigots for daring to suggest that the importation of bigots might not be a good thing.
> >
> > This whole row exposes the truth about ‘diversity’. Those who claim to want it actually just want people of different skin colours, or foreign sounding names, to all agree with western values
> >
> > When in Rome etc..... If you are born here then yes you should bloody well be Western and have Western values. And if you make the choice to come here then again, yes, you should bloody well adapt. If you want to live in an Islamic country well there are plenty to choose from.
> >
> > But don’t come here, become a citizen or resident, have children here and then demand that you should be able to opt out of the bits you don’t like..
>
> It's not about western values, it's about human rights
Voting power trumps human rights, in the end.
> > @oxfordsimon said:
> > > @Cyclefree said:
> > > Of course there is an issue with the ultras in a range of religions. But there is only one which has both threatened and used violence to enforce its view of the world and any analysis of this needs to take account of that sad fact. Because it leads to violence against those it targets: gay people, women, apostates, anyone who criticises them.
> >
> > I don't disagree at all - and just as with the issues with sexual exploitation of young people round the country by gangs, people have been lambasted for pointing out the correlation between membership of the gangs and the religious heritage of the participants. It isn't true to say that they all come from the same religious background - but it is absolutely true to say that the vast majority of them do.
> >
> > Unless we can talk openly about these issues and the causes of the problems, we will continue to fail to tackle them properly.
>
> There's a really strong correlation between sexual offences, including paedophilia, rape and assault, between violence, both organised and random, between terrorism, between domestic abuse, stalking... and one particular group in society.
>
> Which group, I hear you ask?
>
> Men.
>
> So what are we going to do about the male problem? Let's talk openly so we can work out what we're going to do about all the men.
>
> And let's not beat around the bush bringing other groups into it. This is the single biggest predictor for all the worst criminal justice and terrorism-related problems we face. Let's solve that issue first, shall we?
That's pretty broad-brush. Men are, in aggregate, more violent than women, but violence by women tends to be very underreported.
"Boris Johnson is what you get when you send Donald Trump to Eton"
More lines like that and I'll be minded to amnesty the yellow peril from Auchentennach Fine Pies every 30th February .....
> > @oxfordsimon said:
> > You seem obsessed with trying to divert attention to a whole range of other things rather than the topic under discussion.
>
> On the contrary, I'm trying to divert people from making dangerous generalisations. We've already seen one forum poster link homophobia with immigration, which is certainly open racism. Now we want to pretend that we are only seeking to have "difficult conversations" about a "real problem" with one group.
> Well, I've found a group that causes almost all of the problems. Only... whenever I point it out (and I have done this before), suddenly nobody wants to have those "difficult conversations". That's because a lot of the time "difficult conversations" are a cipher for lazily condemning a minority out-group.
>
> I personally won't indulge any generalisations about Islam until we've dealt with the bigger problem, maleness.
> Or, if you can demonstrate there is a bigger correlation between a given group and all the problems of crime and terror, I'm happy to talk about whoever that is first instead.
Why is "maleness" a problem?
https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1130418708910882817?s=19
The government, such that it is, has also largely deafened us with silence on this issue. And then there is the rancid Ester McVey - a politician so keen to race to the bottom that she surely deserves to finish bottom in the Conservative leadership contest.
Mr. W, it was displeasing to see that whilst other Conservative MPs were quickly willing to slam McVey they'd appeared to maintain radio silence when it came to condemning those who'd espoused similar views for weeks beforehand. [Phillips, of course, did, but then, she's not a Conservative MP].
On-topic: this should harm Boris' chances. It might be that, as with the bus, his opponents overplay this and dilute the impact to nothing whilst failing to take the opportunity to remind the world what a shit Foreign Secretary he was.
Though I think he sees it as a way of tactically voting against the Lexiteers.
I do wonder how much of their conversion to the cause of gay parenting is genuine, and how much of it is merely an excuse to bash dusky immigrants. The enemy of my enemy is my friend...
"Good morning, everyone.
Mr. W, it was displeasing to see that whilst other Conservative MPs were quickly willing to slam McVey they'd appeared to maintain radio silence when it came to condemning those who'd espoused similar views for weeks beforehand. [Phillips, of course, did, but then, she's not a Conservative MP]."
...............................................................................................
It was a sign of Theresa May's weak position that when McVey deliberately misled Parliament, for which she was forced to apologize, that the PM failed to sack her.
Now McVey has the effrontery to offer herself to the nation as our next Prime Minister !!!!
> > @DecrepitJohnL said:
> > As someone said the other day, it's a bit funny how Andrea Leadsom is third favourite in the betting stakes when she only has 3 endorsements from Tory MPs in addition to herself.
> >
> > The Telegraph provides a handy graph of the odds movement for each candidate and it looks like Leadsom's price came in more-or-less immediately.
> > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/31/david-cameron-uses-memoirs-settle-scores-backstabbing-michael/
> >
> > It could be tactical wagering by a supporter to make her seem more popular than she is.
> >
> > It could be money from punters who anticipate Leadsom coming through the middle when the other Leavers knock each other out. If this sounds far-fetched, remember it is precisely what happened last time.
> >
> > It could be the market is just wrong and her price is held up only by accumulated liabilities.
> >
> > BUT she is not third favourite, she is fourth favourite behind Johnson, Gove and Raab.
> >
> > So in a market heavily skewed to hard leavers, she is the least likely of the plausible winners. Is the market wrong then? If there is a systemic market error, it is perhaps discounting the soft or reluctant leavers like Hunt, who is now out to 16/1 or more.
>
> I've been laying her down to 14/1 as I don't see the rationale for her being any shorter.
Nor do I, and I've stopped puzzling over it and am now laying her to the max.
The book seems so completely innocuous that the protesters are being ridiculous.
It would be good if the entire book were made available on the web, so everyone could see this.
For a start, it would help Dullard Roger Godsiff, the Labour MP for Hall Green, who seems to think it is a gay sex manual for 3 year olds.
Godsiff has admitted he hasn't read the book.
> I don't see how Trump's endorsement helps Boris so it makes you wonder why he does it.
>
> Because he is an impulsive egomaniac with a big mouth and the diplomatic skills of a bull in a china shop? and Trump is the same...
Hey thats the world you help create, stop moaning
"He formerly suggested Nigel Farage for ambassador don't forget."
...............................................................................
Donald Trump was correct.
Farage deserves to be ambassador. I'm thinking Mongolia and the delights of Ulan Bator during summertime. Farage might consider some "Rory Trekking" over the Gobi Desert too.
She has been a competent leader of the house, loyal to the leadership (a rarity, but something Tories used to value) and has the right background in the Leave campaign.
She will survive the early rounds, I think, and we will then see who gets the Stop Boris vote. It may well be her.
> > @Casino_Royale said:
>
> > > @DecrepitJohnL said:
>
> > > As someone said the other day, it's a bit funny how Andrea Leadsom is third favourite in the betting stakes when she only has 3 endorsements from Tory MPs in addition to herself.
>
> > >
>
> > > The Telegraph provides a handy graph of the odds movement for each candidate and it looks like Leadsom's price came in more-or-less immediately.
>
> > > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/31/david-cameron-uses-memoirs-settle-scores-backstabbing-michael/
>
> > >
>
> > > It could be tactical wagering by a supporter to make her seem more popular than she is.
>
> > >
>
> > > It could be money from punters who anticipate Leadsom coming through the middle when the other Leavers knock each other out. If this sounds far-fetched, remember it is precisely what happened last time.
>
> > >
>
> > > It could be the market is just wrong and her price is held up only by accumulated liabilities.
>
> > >
>
> > > BUT she is not third favourite, she is fourth favourite behind Johnson, Gove and Raab.
>
> > >
>
> > > So in a market heavily skewed to hard leavers, she is the least likely of the plausible winners. Is the market wrong then? If there is a systemic market error, it is perhaps discounting the soft or reluctant leavers like Hunt, who is now out to 16/1 or more.
>
> >
>
> > I've been laying her down to 14/1 as I don't see the rationale for her being any shorter.
>
>
>
> Nor do I, and I've stopped puzzling over it and am now laying her to the max.
>
> She has potential to be a John Major style compromise candidate, one who has risen without trace.
>
> She has been a competent leader of the house, loyal to the leadership (a rarity, but something Tories used to value) and has the right background in the Leave campaign.
>
> She will survive the early rounds, I think, and we will then see who gets the Stop Boris vote. It may well be her.
If she were a compromise candidate she'd be getting more than 2 MPs backing her, half what very late entrants into the race (like Mark Harper and Kit Malthouse) are getting. Gove is that candidate, not her.
It's possible all Brexiters rally around her if both Boris Johnson *and* Dominic Raab fall out of the race, getting her to the final round, but I'd say Esther McVey has a better chance of that and no baggage from last time.
I'm not backing Leadsom south of 15/1 and maybe even not south of 20/1.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48481814
Just what will it take to have the 2nd Amendment modified?
The most shocking indictment of American politics imaginable is that they were able to ban alcohol but not guns.
> > @kamski said:
> > > @Cyclefree said:
> > > > @isam said:
> > >
> > > > > @AndyJS said:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > It's fascinating to watch this clash between Islamic values and Birmingham City Council. Newsnight led on it.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Equality and educational integrity MUST win. We cannot give way to any religion in this dispute.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > It’s the Trojan Horse scandal again. If you allow mass immigration on the scale the UK has, it’s entirely predictable. Foreigners aren’t desperate to ‘become British’, they don’t think we are better than them, it was arrogant of the establishment to think otherwise.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We are bigots for daring to suggest that the importation of bigots might not be a good thing.
> > >
> > > This whole row exposes the truth about ‘diversity’. Those who claim to want it actually just want people of different skin colours, or foreign sounding names, to all agree with western values
> > >
> > > When in Rome etc..... If you are born here then yes you should bloody well be Western and have Western values. And if you make the choice to come here then again, yes, you should bloody well adapt. If you want to live in an Islamic country well there are plenty to choose from.
> > >
> > > But don’t come here, become a citizen or resident, have children here and then demand that you should be able to opt out of the bits you don’t like..
> >
> > It's not about western values, it's about human rights
>
> Voting power trumps human rights, in the end.
That much is clear from politics over recent years.
I think Andrea Leadsom's USP may hinder her, especially as her new title wll raise eyebrows :
Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury and Mother to the Nation.
> > @dixiedean said:
> > Fortunately she's done. The battle for what comes next is on right now.
>
> She should never have been there in the first place.
> And the favourite for her successor is clearly a racist too. It's remarkable how tolerant the Conservative Party is of all this. They can't even be trusted to elect someone with even the most basic ethical standards, let alone defend teachers who are being attacked by bigots.
> And before we go on, yes I'm fully aware that the same can be said for Corbyn. And Farron. What a fucking mess.
As everyone on here knows I have little time for Farron - the harm he has done to south Lakeland is beyond measure. BUT, without question he is not homophobic.
> > @Foxy said:
> > > @Casino_Royale said:
> >
> > > > @DecrepitJohnL said:
> >
> > > > As someone said the other day, it's a bit funny how Andrea Leadsom is third favourite in the betting stakes when she only has 3 endorsements from Tory MPs in addition to herself.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > The Telegraph provides a handy graph of the odds movement for each candidate and it looks like Leadsom's price came in more-or-less immediately.
> >
> > > > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/31/david-cameron-uses-memoirs-settle-scores-backstabbing-michael/
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > It could be tactical wagering by a supporter to make her seem more popular than she is.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > It could be money from punters who anticipate Leadsom coming through the middle when the other Leavers knock each other out. If this sounds far-fetched, remember it is precisely what happened last time.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > It could be the market is just wrong and her price is held up only by accumulated liabilities.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > BUT she is not third favourite, she is fourth favourite behind Johnson, Gove and Raab.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > So in a market heavily skewed to hard leavers, she is the least likely of the plausible winners. Is the market wrong then? If there is a systemic market error, it is perhaps discounting the soft or reluctant leavers like Hunt, who is now out to 16/1 or more.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I've been laying her down to 14/1 as I don't see the rationale for her being any shorter.
> >
> >
> >
> > Nor do I, and I've stopped puzzling over it and am now laying her to the max.
> >
> > She has potential to be a John Major style compromise candidate, one who has risen without trace.
> >
> > She has been a competent leader of the house, loyal to the leadership (a rarity, but something Tories used to value) and has the right background in the Leave campaign.
> >
> > She will survive the early rounds, I think, and we will then see who gets the Stop Boris vote. It may well be her.
>
> If she were a compromise candidate she'd be getting more than 2 MPs backing her, half what very late entrants into the race (like Mark Harper and Kit Malthouse) are getting. Gove is that candidate, not her.
>
> It's possible all Brexiters rally around her if both Boris Johnson *and* Dominic Raab fall out of the race, getting her to the final round, but I'd say Esther McVey has a better chance of that and no baggage from last time.
>
> I'm not backing Leadsom south of 15/1 and maybe even not south of 20/1.
There's also the risk that, perhaps like last time, Leadsom doesn't want to be PM. She wants to be offered Chancellor or some other top job.
"As everyone on here knows I have little time for Farron - the harm he has done to south Lakeland is beyond measure. BUT, without question he is not homophobic."
........................................................................................................................
I have to say you've done a jolly good job in trying to measure Tim Farron's shortcomings !! ....
So, no comment.
It’s the same issue which arose in the Honeyford case, in the Rushdie fatwa, in the Danish cartoons case etc - about a religious group seeking to opt out of the law, about using a false claim to human rights (the parents’ rights are not being infringed since there is nothing stopping them teaching their religion to their children) as a way of limiting the human rights of others.
No. If you live here, you follow our laws. This should not even be up for discussion or debate. British children - which these children are - need to be taught about the laws, rules and values of our society and their human right to have a proper education should not be infringed or limited, not even by their parents.
> Steve Baker is still considering a leadership bid:
>
>
If you were a tory MP who actually did want to leave, as opposed to posturing for the members, why would you vote for anyone other than Sqn Ldr Baker?
He is one of the few tories who has been consistent, principled and honest through this whole fucking mess.
Firstly, I'm pro-the school and anti-the protesters - who in many cases are being utterly nonsensical. I'd also have no problem with my son (nearly five) being taught about such topics: after all, his school has many families with different lifestyles and arrangements from the 'normal' mum-and-dad ones - and not just based on sexuality. Single parents are another example where society can be less than accepting. And I'm a stay-at-home dad, whilst my wife works.
The lesson is a broad one: 'different' does not automatically equate to 'bad' or 'wrong'.
There was some comment that local Labour MP Roger Godsiff was criticising the school's content without having read it. I have a little caution that I haven't read it either (is it available to download online?), so cannot blindly say that it is teaching the topic in a good way. However, the more vocal protesters are frankly against the topic being taught, rather than these specific materials.
Also, when talking about the cultures, we should remember that our own 'culture' has been on somewhat of a journey over the last four or five decades - and that some of the views being expressed by the protesters would have been much more acceptable twenty or thirty decades ago. Views and acceptability change: and ours have moved on in what is (IMO) a positive direction.
For instance, Tim Farron might well be nearer the protesters' view than the PB consensus - and he was Lib Dem leader a couple of years ago!
He is one of the few tories who has been consistent, principled and honest through this whole fucking mess.
Because he’s a fool
>
------
It seems it has some characters like a dog who doesn't fit in, or a boy who wants to be a mermaid. There is a brief description here
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-48351401
Roger Godsiff seems to have mistaken the book for "The Orton Diaries"
https://twitter.com/PennyMordaunt/status/1134216709391306752
> > @oxfordsimon said:
>
> > > @AndyJS said:
>
> > > It's fascinating to watch this clash between Islamic values and Birmingham City Council. Newsnight led on it.
>
> >
>
> > Equality and educational integrity MUST win. We cannot give way to any religion in this dispute.
>
>
>
> It's not just Islam that has a problem here. It's also "mainstream" conservatism. The current and previous PMs voted against the repeal of Section 28.
>
> It is not mainstream conservatives taking their children out of school or protesting against having gay teachers in school.
>
> @oxfordsimon is right. This is a battle that must be fought and won. But the politicians who should be defending the schools and facing down the bullies are silent and cowardly.
>
> Jess Phillips shows us the way. What would Jezza do?
>
> https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1130418708910882817
Jezza will say nothing against the Muslim community. He needs their votes. If it was just Fundamentalist Christians......
> The protests concern a particular book.
>
>
>
> The book seems so completely innocuous that the protesters are being ridiculous.
>
>
>
> It would be good if the entire book were made available on the web, so everyone could see this.
>
>
>
> For a start, it would help Dullard Roger Godsiff, the Labour MP for Hall Green, who seems to think it is a gay sex manual for 3 year olds.
>
>
>
> Godsiff has admitted he hasn't read the book.
>
> The protests are about more than a particular book. It’s about a group thinking that their religion should allow them to opt out of being taught about the laws of this country, should allow them to opt out of following the laws of this country, should allow them to stop others (gay teachers) working freely, should allow them to harass and frighten others.
>
> It’s the same issue which arose in the Honeyford case, in the Rushdie fatwa, in the Danish cartoons case etc - about a religious group seeking to opt out of the law, about using a false claim to human rights (the parents’ rights are not being infringed since there is nothing stopping them teaching their religion to their children) as a way of limiting the human rights of others.
>
> No. If you live here, you follow our laws. This should not even be up for discussion or debate. British children - which these children are - need to be taught about the laws, rules and values of our society and their human right to have a proper education should not be infringed or limited, not even by their parents.
What law are they opting out of? Is the book on the national curriculum?
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/divided-at-home-and-diminished-abroad-britain-now-confronts-a-lost-decade
While Trump’s comments about Boris are certainly harmful (worth reading the entire transcript), what really surprised me was his calling Meghan, Countess of Dumbarton, “nasty”.
Foreign heads of state praising, or criticising, official candidates to be the next prime minister are one thing. But a direct attack on a senior member of the royal family? Ouch!
Quite the optomists.
>
> Because he’s a fool
-------
Baker has said that he'd vote for "a country called Europe" if it had the right constitution.
Your link was broken. Fixed
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/divided-at-home-and-diminished-abroad-britain-now-confronts-a-lost-decade-1.3909518?mode=amp
A decade?? You wish!
It took England four decades to get over being the sick man of Europe, and you only managed it due to Scottish oil and gas.
I reckon it’ll take you at least half a century to recover from this. Dave really was some PM.
> Like others, I don’t see why Andrea Leadsom is so short-priced. I thought she stood a good chance but she manifestly hasn’t taken off. I’ve switched from backing to laying her accordingly.
Is it not obvious: one of her supporters has whacked on a lump of cash to hype her chances.
An old LD trick. Next she’ll be using “creative” bar charts.
Things in her favour I can think of, to try and explain it:
1) Loyal to the leadership, until the point of no return when she resigned
2) Apparently competent at her role as leader of the house
3) Potential compromise candidate (although there might only be room for one of those and Gove/Hunt could end up with the job)
Also, not checked the odds today but was amused yesterday that Mordaunt had shorter odds than Javid despite not having declared she was standing.
> Re Mike’s header.
>
>
>
> While Trump’s comments about Boris are certainly harmful (worth reading the entire transcript), what really surprised me was his calling Meghan, Countess of Dumbarton, “nasty”.
>
>
>
> Foreign heads of state praising, or criticising, official candidates to be the next prime minister are one thing. But a direct attack on a senior member of the royal family? Ouch!
>
> He is an oaf without any manners.
If only the oafs had stayed loyal to their impeccably polite English masters in 1776. It must be independence that makes them so oafish.
However I'd also add the same applies to all hatred, not just LGBQTII (*). This is why objections to the term 'Islamaphobia' and the brain-dead 'Islam is not a race!' argument are IMV unsupportable.
We should not pick and choose the hatreds we want to condemn.
(*) Whatever the term's meant to be today: I just saw a BBC article that added '2S' to the front to make '2SLGBTQQIA', which apparently means '2-spirit'. Although it's in a Canadian context, I've no idea what it means.
Also Trump probably doesn’t want to hang out at summits with weirdos like Hancock, Rory or Hunt.
> The funniest thing about the Trump article . Allegedly other leadership candidates were begging for his endorsement !
Reminds me of when Cameron spent to much effort begging Obama et al to condemn Scottish independence. Why can’t folk just rely on the strength of their own arguments and their own debating skills? Oh... yes... of course... I see why.
> Trump backs the favourite shock.
>
> Also Trump probably doesn’t want to hang out at summits with weirdos like Hancock, Rory or Hunt.
Boris isn’t weird? Where have you been the last two decades?
Islamophobia (leaving aside the overuse of 'phobia' is as daft as that of 'denier') is about Islam, which is an idea. I entirely condemn anti-Muslim bigotry, and entirely support the right for any idea, especially religious ones, to be scrutinised, mocked, insulted, or subjected to intellectual inquiry.
Islamophobia is a foolish term precisely because it covers both of those things, one wretched, one essential in a free society.
There was a story on Look North (local news in this area) a few months ago about animals not been stunned prior to halal slaughter. There was widespread condemnation but one of those arguing against the condemnation accused those on the other side of having a 'political agenda'. There's a very real risk of people foolishly allowing us to slide into the realm of being unable to criticise or disagree with aspects of Islam simply because it's deemed 'hateful'.
The creed of cultural sensitivity has a lot to answer for. We should defend key tenets of British culture with vigour. Freedom of expression, religion, and sexuality are not small things we should throw on the bonfire of political correctness, but vital parts of a free and fair society.
> > @Cyclefree said:
>
> > What is the case you mention?
>
>
>
> Shahmir Sanni. It was horrible. His family in Pakistan had to go into hiding.
>
> I'm reading a bit more about May's contribution to the equal marriage legislation. I wasn't aware of the praise she'd received. In fact, I was under the impression she's voted against it as she had with the Section 28 repeal. I might have been a little too harsh on her in that light, and perhaps she has changed since the early 2000s. Still, the Sanni case is deeply troubling. If she wasn't behind Parkinson doing what he did, she should have fired him. She didn't.
>
> It was an intrinsic part of Parkinson’s defence that he and Shahmir had been in a relationship. Should he not have been allowed to defend himself?
Not publicly. He endangered people's lives
Also it’s pretty shallow to think the US presidents opinion will sway this either way. We need better coverage from our media.
I see Saj Javid is offering to pay for NI border tech - probably not a silver bullet but more of this could help move things along.
I don’t think the Uk has used the money angle enough - one off payments shouldn’t stop a deal.
(i) Seeking to minimize it
(ii) Getting the right word for it.
Close call but on balance I'm going with (i).