I will not be lining up behind any labour leader to be fair
A highly commendable post. Analysis on best Labour Leader and policy direction from those who would not vote Labour if we were led by Martin Luther Churchill should perhaps be kept as brief as possible.
Completely wrong. Those Tories who paid £3 to join the Labour Party and elect Jezza as leader had a huge influence on absolutely everything that followed since.
Actually they didn't. Corbyn walked both the 2015 and 2016 elections without any need of their votes and so they ended up just making donations to the Labour Party.
“ Yesterday morning, after eleven mostly unhappy and pointless years, I left Twitter. It’s no biggie. Nor is it because of something that has happened on there but rather something that happened in the real world (IRL).
You see, as 2019 turned into 2020, the topic that was trending number one in the UK was not #NYE or even #StormzyHootenanny, but #GilesCoren. Because a piece in The Times carried a quote from me about a Labour activist and Guardian writer called Owen Jones, whom I didn’t know was gay, that Jones declared on Twitter to be homophobic. He has a million followers. They agreed with him. They piled on. That’s fine, I guess. It’s what Twitter is for. And anyway by the end of the following day I had been replaced by #WW3 — phew!
But over the weekend Jones’s followers tweeted “we’ve found your address” and yesterday morning a group of them went round to my house, while I was at work, and started haranguing my wife and children.”
Twitter still not 14 years old.
Such a wank stain on the twenty first century.....
The problem isn't Twitter itself. The problem is a lot of the people that use Twitter, who appear to have no self-discipline whatsoever in an online context.
“ Yesterday morning, after eleven mostly unhappy and pointless years, I left Twitter. It’s no biggie. Nor is it because of something that has happened on there but rather something that happened in the real world (IRL).
You see, as 2019 turned into 2020, the topic that was trending number one in the UK was not #NYE or even #StormzyHootenanny, but #GilesCoren. Because a piece in The Times carried a quote from me about a Labour activist and Guardian writer called Owen Jones, whom I didn’t know was gay, that Jones declared on Twitter to be homophobic. He has a million followers. They agreed with him. They piled on. That’s fine, I guess. It’s what Twitter is for. And anyway by the end of the following day I had been replaced by #WW3 — phew!
But over the weekend Jones’s followers tweeted “we’ve found your address” and yesterday morning a group of them went round to my house, while I was at work, and started haranguing my wife and children.”
Twitter still not 14 years old.
Such a wank stain on the twenty first century.....
The problem isn't Twitter itself. The problem is a lot of the people that use Twitter, who appear to have no self-discipline whatsoever in an online context.
People still believe what you say and do online is the same as down the pub.
I will not be lining up behind any labour leader to be fair
A highly commendable post. Analysis on best Labour Leader and policy direction from those who would not vote Labour if we were led by Martin Luther Churchill should perhaps be kept as brief as possible.
Completely wrong. Those Tories who paid £3 to join the Labour Party and elect Jezza as leader had a huge influence on absolutely everything that followed since.
This has entered popular mythology. But, it's not true.
There were 41,217 affiliates who voted for Corby in 2015. His winning majority was 170,955.
Even if all 41,217 affiliates were pb Tories, Corby would still have won, and won handsomely.
Wow. That's even better. It was totally self-inflicted. Amazing.
“ Yesterday morning, after eleven mostly unhappy and pointless years, I left Twitter. It’s no biggie. Nor is it because of something that has happened on there but rather something that happened in the real world (IRL).
You see, as 2019 turned into 2020, the topic that was trending number one in the UK was not #NYE or even #StormzyHootenanny, but #GilesCoren. Because a piece in The Times carried a quote from me about a Labour activist and Guardian writer called Owen Jones, whom I didn’t know was gay, that Jones declared on Twitter to be homophobic. He has a million followers. They agreed with him. They piled on. That’s fine, I guess. It’s what Twitter is for. And anyway by the end of the following day I had been replaced by #WW3 — phew!
But over the weekend Jones’s followers tweeted “we’ve found your address” and yesterday morning a group of them went round to my house, while I was at work, and started haranguing my wife and children.”
Twitter still not 14 years old.
Such a wank stain on the twenty first century.....
The problem isn't Twitter itself. The problem is a lot of the people that use Twitter, who appear to have no self-discipline whatsoever in an online context.
Those people and their activities were entirely foreseeable. Twitter is a system that went live without the interest in even trying to stop them. So the problem IS Twitter itself.
“ Yesterday morning, after eleven mostly unhappy and pointless years, I left Twitter. It’s no biggie. Nor is it because of something that has happened on there but rather something that happened in the real world (IRL).
You see, as 2019 turned into 2020, the topic that was trending number one in the UK was not #NYE or even #StormzyHootenanny, but #GilesCoren. Because a piece in The Times carried a quote from me about a Labour activist and Guardian writer called Owen Jones, whom I didn’t know was gay, that Jones declared on Twitter to be homophobic. He has a million followers. They agreed with him. They piled on. That’s fine, I guess. It’s what Twitter is for. And anyway by the end of the following day I had been replaced by #WW3 — phew!
But over the weekend Jones’s followers tweeted “we’ve found your address” and yesterday morning a group of them went round to my house, while I was at work, and started haranguing my wife and children.”
Twitter still not 14 years old.
Such a wank stain on the twenty first century.....
The problem isn't Twitter itself. The problem is a lot of the people that use Twitter, who appear to have no self-discipline whatsoever in an online context.
But you end up sounding like the NRA.
"The problem isn't guns. The problem is a lot of people who use guns appear to have no self-discipline whatsoever."
That is new on me. A super read. And if meant to send himself up - a satire of overweaning self-importance - then it's borderline genius. If not, the mind rather boggles.
Reminded me slightly of Lewis Hamilton's account of meetings with his engineers.
"I go in a meeting with them at the factory and those guys can sit in meetings for hours and stay focused. I have a window of, say, 23 minutes or something like that. As soon as I get there, it's all going over my head. They know. I say: 'Look, I gotta get up, go for a pee, have a coffee or something and I can come back.' And they get another 23 minutes."
I will not be lining up behind any labour leader to be fair
A highly commendable post. Analysis on best Labour Leader and policy direction from those who would not vote Labour if we were led by Martin Luther Churchill should perhaps be kept as brief as possible.
Completely wrong. Those Tories who paid £3 to join the Labour Party and elect Jezza as leader had a huge influence on absolutely everything that followed since.
Actually they didn't. Corbyn walked both the 2015 and 2016 elections without any need of their votes and so they ended up just making donations to the Labour Party.
Yeah as noted by others. That's excellent to hear.
That's seriously worrying, air safety is one of those things that governments tend to co-operate on, no matter what other diplomatic issues exist between them. Hopefully the FDR and CVR 'black boxes' can be sent somewhere neutral and trusted (BEA in Paris?) for reading out.
Sad to say, but early indications are that this is a repeat of MH17
Another candidate who seems to think the only issue with Labour GE was the Brexit position....according to him, if they had only pointed out that it was a hard right project, stuck to their Remain guns, they wouldn't have lost.
Has he only just noticed this sort of behaviour on Twitter? Of course not.
That is why it feels like there is something else behind his decision.
It is the right move. But why had it taken him so long when Twitter toxicity has been a big factor for a very long time?
I'm sure his motives are multiple. I can vouch for his essential decency having followed and read him for quite some time. But that cannot be said for all of his fanbase and I think he does realize this.
“ Yesterday morning, after eleven mostly unhappy and pointless years, I left Twitter. It’s no biggie. Nor is it because of something that has happened on there but rather something that happened in the real world (IRL).
You see, as 2019 turned into 2020, the topic that was trending number one in the UK was not #NYE or even #StormzyHootenanny, but #GilesCoren. Because a piece in The Times carried a quote from me about a Labour activist and Guardian writer called Owen Jones, whom I didn’t know was gay, that Jones declared on Twitter to be homophobic. He has a million followers. They agreed with him. They piled on. That’s fine, I guess. It’s what Twitter is for. And anyway by the end of the following day I had been replaced by #WW3 — phew!
But over the weekend Jones’s followers tweeted “we’ve found your address” and yesterday morning a group of them went round to my house, while I was at work, and started haranguing my wife and children.”
Twitter still not 14 years old.
Such a wank stain on the twenty first century.....
The problem isn't Twitter itself. The problem is a lot of the people that use Twitter, who appear to have no self-discipline whatsoever in an online context.
Those people and their activities were entirely foreseeable. Twitter is a system that went live without the interest in even trying to stop them. So the problem IS Twitter itself.
It was designed to be a conduit for outrage.
Nope - it was designed to be a means of communicating information.
The design means it's a conduit of outrage but that was it's purpose or it's original design.
People have a habit of seeing malice is what is often just an accidental use case.
Everything is viewed through a party political prism. The people who dislike Boris for being an insincere politician with a taste for self-publicity are the very ones now applauding Jess as "a breath of fresh air", who can reconnect with the voters.
There is ample evidence that Jess speaks before she thinks.
It’s certainly an unusual trait in a politician to genuinely speak their mind - and as you say, in her case often before she’s made it up...
I am no fan of hers, just opining that she is not a complete no hoper.
What I don’t annoying about her is that she seems compelled to play up to her self styled image of a gobby, no nonsense, rough round the edges kind of ‘ladette’ as they used to say in the 90s
Self definition is a egotistical trap, I don’t get why people are so enthusiastic to constrain themselves. It’s so transparent that all they are doing is pleading for people to see them in the way they describe themselves,
That's seriously worrying, air safety is one of those things that governments tend to co-operate on, no matter what other diplomatic issues exist between them. Hopefully the FDR and CVR 'black boxes' can be sent somewhere neutral and trusted (BEA in Paris?) for reading out.
Sad to say, but early indications are that this is a repeat of MH17
There did seem to be a surprisingly large number of Canadians on that flight.....
At least she's not scared to argue with Muslims about homophobia, even as MP for a constituency that's around one third Muslim. https://youtu.be/Zy9FAko75hE?t=15
But what did she achieve there? She provided gratification for us who are angry with the protesters. She raised her own personal profile. She also raised the temperature of a fractious situation and entrenched opinion among people who we disagree with. She even talked them down after they had stayed quiet while she had her say. Did she really think that would do any good? Of course not.
The right thing to do would have been to visit the protesters and listen carefully to their point of view, and then respond in a way that does not compromise her principles but also does not deliberately stoke the flames. That's something that any councillor, or for that matter anyone with managerial responsibilities in their local supermarket, should understand.
Sorry but they don't have a legitimate point of view. They are peddling lies, misinformation and bigotry. There is no reasoning with them.
They have to be called out for what they are. Exposed. Defeated.
JP should have had the support of many more political colleagues. But she didn't. Too many are scared to confront a particular demographic at best or secretly sharing their bigotry at worst.
“ Yesterday morning, after eleven mostly unhappy and pointless years, I left Twitter. It’s no biggie. Nor is it because of something that has happened on there but rather something that happened in the real world (IRL).
You see, as 2019 turned into 2020, the topic that was trending number one in the UK was not #NYE or even #StormzyHootenanny, but #GilesCoren. Because a piece in The Times carried a quote from me about a Labour activist and Guardian writer called Owen Jones, whom I didn’t know was gay, that Jones declared on Twitter to be homophobic. He has a million followers. They agreed with him. They piled on. That’s fine, I guess. It’s what Twitter is for. And anyway by the end of the following day I had been replaced by #WW3 — phew!
But over the weekend Jones’s followers tweeted “we’ve found your address” and yesterday morning a group of them went round to my house, while I was at work, and started haranguing my wife and children.”
Twitter still not 14 years old.
Such a wank stain on the twenty first century.....
The problem isn't Twitter itself. The problem is a lot of the people that use Twitter, who appear to have no self-discipline whatsoever in an online context.
Those people and their activities were entirely foreseeable. Twitter is a system that went live without the interest in even trying to stop them. So the problem IS Twitter itself.
It was designed to be a conduit for outrage.
I particularly dislike the fact that police now seem to spend too much time investigating "outrages" on twitter.
It is twitter's responsibility to monitor this.
twitter pays £ 41,000 tax on UK revenue of £ 100 million (according to the Evening Standard). And then outsources the job of monitoring to our police service.
We should bill twitter for the cost of police and court time.
That's seriously worrying, air safety is one of those things that governments tend to co-operate on, no matter what other diplomatic issues exist between them. Hopefully the FDR and CVR 'black boxes' can be sent somewhere neutral and trusted (BEA in Paris?) for reading out.
Sad to say, but early indications are that this is a repeat of MH17
There did seem to be a surprisingly large number of Canadians on that flight.....
Yeah, that doesn't make an awful lot of sense, and I can't work out who they are and why they were on that plane.
There's no direct scheduled flights from Kiev to Canada (but plenty from Dubai or Doha), and not much Oil & Gas activity in Ukraine - which is the only thing I'd expect Western nationals to be doing in Iran, except perhaps some private security.
At least she's not scared to argue with Muslims about homophobia, even as MP for a constituency that's around one third Muslim. https://youtu.be/Zy9FAko75hE?t=15
But what did she achieve there? She provided gratification for us who are angry with the protesters. She raised her own personal profile. She also raised the temperature of a fractious situation and entrenched opinion among people who we disagree with. She even talked them down after they had stayed quiet while she had her say. Did she really think that would do any good? Of course not.
The right thing to do would have been to visit the protesters and listen carefully to their point of view, and then respond in a way that does not compromise her principles but also does not deliberately stoke the flames. That's something that any councillor, or for that matter anyone with managerial responsibilities in their local supermarket, should understand.
Jezza, sticking up for terrorists and enemies of the west everywhere.
And international law. Don't forget that. If you cast an eye westward, Americans also seem to be wondering about it.
Internationally everyone always seems to insist they have not broken international law no matter what they did, so I've generally felt people might as well stick to whether something was right or wrong not illegal, since no one agrees on the latter anyway.
Sorry but they don't have a legitimate point of view. They are peddling lies, misinformation and bigotry. There is no reasoning with them.
They have to be called out for what they are. Exposed. Defeated.
JP should have had the support of many more political colleagues. But she didn't. Too many are scared to confront a particular demographic at best or secretly sharing their bigotry at worst.
Sorry, but you are entirely missing the point. The protestors' arguments need to be defeated. Phillips' actions had nothing to do with defeating them, and were all about symbolic gestures that raised her own profile.
Her actions made it easier for the protesters to recruit more moderate people to their cause, just by playing that video to them. Her behaviour therefore actually makes it much harder to defeat them. She has a symbiotic relationship with them, and I doubt she lacks the intelligence to understand this.
Maybe you should watch the video I posted earlier about how Wigan's, council, MP and police were successful in defeating an example of bigotry by keeping their heads and working hard, not by shouting at people. If Phillips was serious about fighting bigotry, that's what she would do.
At least she's not scared to argue with Muslims about homophobia, even as MP for a constituency that's around one third Muslim. https://youtu.be/Zy9FAko75hE?t=15
But what did she achieve there? She provided gratification for us who are angry with the protesters. She raised her own personal profile. She also raised the temperature of a fractious situation and entrenched opinion among people who we disagree with. She even talked them down after they had stayed quiet while she had her say. Did she really think that would do any good? Of course not.
The right thing to do would have been to visit the protesters and listen carefully to their point of view, and then respond in a way that does not compromise her principles but also does not deliberately stoke the flames. That's something that any councillor, or for that matter anyone with managerial responsibilities in their local supermarket, should understand.
He can be carefully listened to. Listening carefully to these protestors reveals the dishonesty of some of their arguments about what it is about. Theres just no point pretending theres some nice middle ground on this issue and responding to him accordingly after you've done so. I say that as not a fan of Phillips and a fan of middlegrounds.
Sometimes to defeat such things you need to be subtler. But sometimes you do have to draw a line in the sand and confront, otherwise they believe you wont fight them at all.
At least she's not scared to argue with Muslims about homophobia, even as MP for a constituency that's around one third Muslim. https://youtu.be/Zy9FAko75hE?t=15
But what did she achieve there? She provided gratification for us who are angry with the protesters. She raised her own personal profile. She also raised the temperature of a fractious situation and entrenched opinion among people who we disagree with. She even talked them down after they had stayed quiet while she had her say. Did she really think that would do any good? Of course not.
The right thing to do would have been to visit the protesters and listen carefully to their point of view, and then respond in a way that does not compromise her principles but also does not deliberately stoke the flames. That's something that any councillor, or for that matter anyone with managerial responsibilities in their local supermarket, should understand.
Homophobia is homophobia and should be called out. Gay people should be stood up for, not put to one side.
I'm sorry, but its at times like this I remember Mike is also a Lib Dem supporter. Firstly the betting clearly has her in fourth. Secondly most of the comments, from political pundits, about the labour hustings last night had Nandy as the clear winner based on their feedback. It is also worth noting much of the social media support from twitter comes from not only the labour right the but yellow diamond brigade. She is very popular with Lib Dems. In terms of labour nominations she was always going to hoover up the right wing Blairite brigade.
Her performance on GMB yesterday was poor and she showed some of the crabbiness that Corbyn had in abundance when under pressure from Piers Morgan, of all people.
I have put a fiver on Phillips at 14-1 because I think her odds will come in but that is all.
That's seriously worrying, air safety is one of those things that governments tend to co-operate on, no matter what other diplomatic issues exist between them. Hopefully the FDR and CVR 'black boxes' can be sent somewhere neutral and trusted (BEA in Paris?) for reading out.
Sad to say, but early indications are that this is a repeat of MH17
There did seem to be a surprisingly large number of Canadians on that flight.....
Yeah, that doesn't make an awful lot of sense, and I can't work out who they are and why they were on that plane.
There's no direct scheduled flights from Kiev to Canada (but plenty from Dubai or Doha), and not much Oil & Gas activity in Ukraine - which is the only thing I'd expect Western nationals to be doing in Iran, except perhaps some private security.
I’ve know of O&G debt deals for Ukrainian production assets.
Utterly contemptuous dismissal of Corbyn. Painful to watch
Just watched it. Awful for Corbyn, he didn't even acknowledge that there's two sides to every conflict and just wanted to mouth off about how awful it was for Iran.
I agree with all the criticism of Twitter. But it's still a diversion from Giles Coren's incredibly homophobic bullshit about Owen Jones
Why is it homophobic to say an old, gay man would enjoy chasing young dishy men? It could be deemed offensive to Owen Jones and his partner to suggest he would be unfaithful, and is maybe a bit crass and unfunny, but it’s no different to suggesting a heterosexual man would chase young female researchers (which is what the author is claiming he meant)
Utterly contemptuous dismissal of Corbyn. Painful to watch
Just watched it. Awful for Corbyn, he didn't even acknowledge that there's two sides to every conflict and just wanted to mouth off about how awful it was for Iran.
Utterly contemptuous dismissal of Corbyn. Painful to watch
Just watched it. Awful for Corbyn, he didn't even acknowledge that there's two sides to every conflict and just wanted to mouth off about how awful it was for Iran.
Clearly a Tory agent.
Yes, just watched it. Confirms what many people think of him.
Homophobia is homophobia and should be called out. Gay people should be stood up for, not put to one side.
Again, obviously true but entirely missing the point. Call out homophobia in a way that doesn't feed the homophobia, otherwise it has nothing to do with standing up for gay people, but is all about making yourself feel good.
That's seriously worrying, air safety is one of those things that governments tend to co-operate on, no matter what other diplomatic issues exist between them. Hopefully the FDR and CVR 'black boxes' can be sent somewhere neutral and trusted (BEA in Paris?) for reading out.
Sad to say, but early indications are that this is a repeat of MH17
There did seem to be a surprisingly large number of Canadians on that flight.....
Yeah, that doesn't make an awful lot of sense, and I can't work out who they are and why they were on that plane.
There's no direct scheduled flights from Kiev to Canada (but plenty from Dubai or Doha), and not much Oil & Gas activity in Ukraine - which is the only thing I'd expect Western nationals to be doing in Iran, except perhaps some private security.
I’ve know of O&G debt deals for Ukrainian production assets.
Yes, there's some O&G there, mostly natural gas from around the Black Sea and Donetsk region, and recently some shale gas.
I agree with all the criticism of Twitter. But it's still a diversion from Giles Coren's incredibly homophobic bullshit about Owen Jones
Why is it homophobic to say an old, gay man would enjoy chasing young dishy men? It could be deemed offensive to Owen Jones and his partner to suggest he would be unfaithful, and is maybe a bit crass and unfunny, but it’s no different to suggesting a heterosexual man would chase young female researchers (which is what the author is claiming he meant)
I suspect Jones objected to the possible sodomistic reference of 'tight bottoms'.
I agree with all the criticism of Twitter. But it's still a diversion from Giles Coren's incredibly homophobic bullshit about Owen Jones
Why is it homophobic to say an old, gay man would enjoy chasing young dishy men? It could be deemed offensive to Owen Jones and his partner to suggest he would be unfaithful, and is maybe a bit crass and unfunny, but it’s no different to suggesting a heterosexual man would chase young female researchers (which is what the author is claiming he meant)
Coren's comment was homophobic. That's no excuse for people showing up outside his house, but it was a disgusting thing to write.
“ Yesterday morning, after eleven mostly unhappy and pointless years, I left Twitter. It’s no biggie. Nor is it because of something that has happened on there but rather something that happened in the real world (IRL).
You see, as 2019 turned into 2020, the topic that was trending number one in the UK was not #NYE or even #StormzyHootenanny, but #GilesCoren. Because a piece in The Times carried a quote from me about a Labour activist and Guardian writer called Owen Jones, whom I didn’t know was gay, that Jones declared on Twitter to be homophobic. He has a million followers. They agreed with him. They piled on. That’s fine, I guess. It’s what Twitter is for. And anyway by the end of the following day I had been replaced by #WW3 — phew!
But over the weekend Jones’s followers tweeted “we’ve found your address” and yesterday morning a group of them went round to my house, while I was at work, and started haranguing my wife and children.”
Pity he isn't retiring from the Times too. Talentless supercilious hack employed mainly because of who is father was.
"Did not know that Jones was gay" - I should coco.
Caveat -
Nothing wrong with his food columns. Quite good actually. Always read them.
Rubbish, Giles Coren is one of the most interesting and amusing journalists put there, far more so than the partisan rants of Owen Jones
At least she's not scared to argue with Muslims about homophobia, even as MP for a constituency that's around one third Muslim. https://youtu.be/Zy9FAko75hE?t=15
But what did she achieve there? She provided gratification for us who are angry with the protesters. She raised her own personal profile. She also raised the temperature of a fractious situation and entrenched opinion among people who we disagree with. She even talked them down after they had stayed quiet while she had her say. Did she really think that would do any good? Of course not.
The right thing to do would have been to visit the protesters and listen carefully to their point of view, and then respond in a way that does not compromise her principles but also does not deliberately stoke the flames. That's something that any councillor, or for that matter anyone with managerial responsibilities in their local supermarket, should understand.
Maybe not, but the tweet asks "how can this be legal?", how could it not be? What kind of dreadful country would we be living in if we couldnt express our views in this way.
I agree with all the criticism of Twitter. But it's still a diversion from Giles Coren's incredibly homophobic bullshit about Owen Jones
Why is it homophobic to say an old, gay man would enjoy chasing young dishy men? It could be deemed offensive to Owen Jones and his partner to suggest he would be unfaithful, and is maybe a bit crass and unfunny, but it’s no different to suggesting a heterosexual man would chase young female researchers (which is what the author is claiming he meant)
I suspect Jones objected to the possible sodomistic reference of 'tight bottoms'.
Sure, but I think the same could be said to a heterosexual man, or woman, with the same intent. It is not complimentary, it is basically calling the target a dirty old so and so, but I don't think it is homophobic because it could be equally offensive if Jones were heterosexual.
I am on Team Jess ever since she made it clear she will support Rejoin.
Phillips is like Ken Clarke was in 2001, too Blairite for the membership as he was too pro EU.
Long Bailey would have a chance of beating Phillips she would not have with Starmer if they get to the final round, much as Portillo might have beaten IDS but Clarke would not
At least she's not scared to argue with Muslims about homophobia, even as MP for a constituency that's around one third Muslim. https://youtu.be/Zy9FAko75hE?t=15
But what did she achieve there? She provided gratification for us who are angry with the protesters. She raised her own personal profile. She also raised the temperature of a fractious situation and entrenched opinion among people who we disagree with. She even talked them down after they had stayed quiet while she had her say. Did she really think that would do any good? Of course not.
The right thing to do would have been to visit the protesters and listen carefully to their point of view, and then respond in a way that does not compromise her principles but also does not deliberately stoke the flames. That's something that any councillor, or for that matter anyone with managerial responsibilities in their local supermarket, should understand.
It's illustrative. I'm working on the basis that the 2020s will be dominated by a culture war, (which, if we're unlucky, will turn into a hot war, but let's not catastrophise). It will be conducted by attacking approved targets - the EU, transsexuals, Moslems and - I was distressed but not surprised to learn - civil servants, and whoever else gets added to the list of fashionable Thems of the day.
I'll have to write all this up into an article, but suffice to say that Jess's attack was a part of that. The point was to attack, not to win - it's a shibboleth to demonstrate which side she is on. This is one of the reasons why I think Labour has a chance if she wins.
I agree with all the criticism of Twitter. But it's still a diversion from Giles Coren's incredibly homophobic bullshit about Owen Jones
Why is it homophobic to say an old, gay man would enjoy chasing young dishy men? It could be deemed offensive to Owen Jones and his partner to suggest he would be unfaithful, and is maybe a bit crass and unfunny, but it’s no different to suggesting a heterosexual man would chase young female researchers (which is what the author is claiming he meant)
Coren's comment was homophobic. That's no excuse for people showing up outside his house, but it was a disgusting thing to write.
Why would it be any more or less offensive if Jones were Heterosexual?
And the House of Commons. It was remarkable that there was none of the organised cheering and barracking that has marred PMQs for the past several years (and which was the previous Speaker's justification for letting PMQs overrun).
At least she's not scared to argue with Muslims about homophobia, even as MP for a constituency that's around one third Muslim. https://youtu.be/Zy9FAko75hE?t=15
But what did she achieve there? She provided gratification for us who are angry with the protesters. She raised her own personal profile. She also raised the temperature of a fractious situation and entrenched opinion among people who we disagree with. She even talked them down after they had stayed quiet while she had her say. Did she really think that would do any good? Of course not.
The right thing to do would have been to visit the protesters and listen carefully to their point of view, and then respond in a way that does not compromise her principles but also does not deliberately stoke the flames. That's something that any councillor, or for that matter anyone with managerial responsibilities in their local supermarket, should understand.
It's illustrative. I'm working on the basis that the 2020s will be dominated by a culture war, (which, if we're unlucky, will turn into a hot war, but let's not catastrophise). It will be conducted by attacking approved targets - the EU, transsexuals, Moslems and - I was distressed but not surprised to learn - civil servants, and whoever else gets added to the list of fashionable Thems of the day.
I'll have to write all this up into an article, but suffice to say that Jess's attack was a part of that. The point was to attack, not to win - it's a shibboleth to demonstrate which side she is on. This is one of the reasons why I think Labour has a chance if she wins.
You think transsexuals are approved targets? If we are talking culture war, theyve been running pretty hard guerrilla attacks for at least the last couple of years.
At least she's not scared to argue with Muslims about homophobia, even as MP for a constituency that's around one third Muslim. https://youtu.be/Zy9FAko75hE?t=15
But what did she achieve there? She provided gratification for us who are angry with the protesters. She raised her own personal profile. She also raised the temperature of a fractious situation and entrenched opinion among people who we disagree with. She even talked them down after they had stayed quiet while she had her say. Did she really think that would do any good? Of course not.
The right thing to do would have been to visit the protesters and listen carefully to their point of view, and then respond in a way that does not compromise her principles but also does not deliberately stoke the flames. That's something that any councillor, or for that matter anyone with managerial responsibilities in their local supermarket, should understand.
Sorry but they don't have a legitimate point of view. They are peddling lies, misinformation and bigotry. There is no reasoning with them.
If you could post a list of legitimate and illegitimate views, they would know what they were allowed to say and mediate their speech accordingly.
(Sorry, I know it's trolling, but I couldn't resist it... )
And the House of Commons. It was remarkable that there was none of the organised cheering and barracking that has marred PMQs for the past several years (and which was the previous Speaker's justification for letting PMQs overrun).
I doubt that will last. The opposition are broken men who can only look across in meek silence at the all-conquering Boris, king of the world. Should Boris falter though, the noise and fury will begin again.
Yes, still a worthy favourite at 1.9. It's him or Nandy for me. 1st pref Nandy.
Best betting play right now IMO is lay RLB at 3.7.
I sense she has little chance. "The Project" is over.
Mike says in his header that there is an appetite for a female leader - but he is getting this from Labour MPs. What of the membership?
What I can`t get a handle on is the extent to which members will be comfortable voting for the one man from the metropolitan elite in London ahead of three women from the north. (I`m discounting Lewis and Thornberry.)
I agree with all the criticism of Twitter. But it's still a diversion from Giles Coren's incredibly homophobic bullshit about Owen Jones
Why is it homophobic to say an old, gay man would enjoy chasing young dishy men? It could be deemed offensive to Owen Jones and his partner to suggest he would be unfaithful, and is maybe a bit crass and unfunny, but it’s no different to suggesting a heterosexual man would chase young female researchers (which is what the author is claiming he meant)
Coren's comment was homophobic. That's no excuse for people showing up outside his house, but it was a disgusting thing to write.
Why would it be any more or less offensive if Jones were Heterosexual?
It would still have been a very unpleasant thing to write if Jones were heterosexual, but don't forget that homophobic harassment and violence is still quite common (reported incidents are rising). That does make a difference. I take your point, and in a world without prejudice there would be an equivalence, but we don't live in a world without prejudice.
I agree with all the criticism of Twitter. But it's still a diversion from Giles Coren's incredibly homophobic bullshit about Owen Jones
Why is it homophobic to say an old, gay man would enjoy chasing young dishy men? It could be deemed offensive to Owen Jones and his partner to suggest he would be unfaithful, and is maybe a bit crass and unfunny, but it’s no different to suggesting a heterosexual man would chase young female researchers (which is what the author is claiming he meant)
I suspect Jones objected to the possible sodomistic reference of 'tight bottoms'.
Sure, but I think the same could be said to a heterosexual man, or woman, with the same intent. It is not complimentary, it is basically calling the target a dirty old so and so, but I don't think it is homophobic because it could be equally offensive if Jones were heterosexual.
I'm sure there's an element of exaggerated offence going on but I am also pretty sure it is homophobic.
I am on Team Jess ever since she made it clear she will support Rejoin.
Which is probably why the yellow diamonds love her too.
The reason I like her is she is the most likely to take on the Corbynistas, the others will seek compromise that cannot really exist and would lead to failure. Labour need to do far more than change the leader and the policies, the organisation itself is toxic.
“ Yesterday morning, after eleven mostly unhappy and pointless years, I left Twitter. It’s no biggie. Nor is it because of something that has happened on there but rather something that happened in the real world (IRL).
You see, as 2019 turned into 2020, the topic that was trending number one in the UK was not #NYE or even #StormzyHootenanny, but #GilesCoren. Because a piece in The Times carried a quote from me about a Labour activist and Guardian writer called Owen Jones, whom I didn’t know was gay, that Jones declared on Twitter to be homophobic. He has a million followers. They agreed with him. They piled on. That’s fine, I guess. It’s what Twitter is for. And anyway by the end of the following day I had been replaced by #WW3 — phew!
But over the weekend Jones’s followers tweeted “we’ve found your address” and yesterday morning a group of them went round to my house, while I was at work, and started haranguing my wife and children.”
Pity he isn't retiring from the Times too. Talentless supercilious hack employed mainly because of who is father was.
"Did not know that Jones was gay" - I should coco.
Caveat -
Nothing wrong with his food columns. Quite good actually. Always read them.
Rubbish, Giles Coren is one of the most interesting and amusing journalists put there, far more so than the partisan rants of Owen Jones
"Journalist"?
IIUC, he writes restaurant reviews and opinion pieces. I appreciate some think that's journalism, but not me. Interestingly, the same applies to Owen Jones...
I went off on a rant the other day to @NorthernPowerhouse about various publications being care homes for unemployable wealthy people who, if not for nepotism and corruption, would be in a sleeping bag outside the station ranting at passers by. So I am not that distressed.
I am however distressed at the threatening people turning up at their homes, which is just plain wrong.
Coren's piece is clearly a nonsense send up of what Corbyn might do - Jones isn't fat or old (At least I hope 35 isn't considered that old these days !), and it's not even specified if the researchers are male or female. Not homophobic at all.
At least she's not scared to argue with Muslims about homophobia, even as MP for a constituency that's around one third Muslim. https://youtu.be/Zy9FAko75hE?t=15
But what did she achieve there? She provided gratification for us who are angry with the protesters. She raised her own personal profile. She also raised the temperature of a fractious situation and entrenched opinion among people who we disagree with. She even talked them down after they had stayed quiet while she had her say. Did she really think that would do any good? Of course not.
The right thing to do would have been to visit the protesters and listen carefully to their point of view, and then respond in a way that does not compromise her principles but also does not deliberately stoke the flames. That's something that any councillor, or for that matter anyone with managerial responsibilities in their local supermarket, should understand.
It's illustrative. I'm working on the basis that the 2020s will be dominated by a culture war, (which, if we're unlucky, will turn into a hot war, but let's not catastrophise). It will be conducted by attacking approved targets - the EU, transsexuals, Moslems and - I was distressed but not surprised to learn - civil servants, and whoever else gets added to the list of fashionable Thems of the day.
I'll have to write all this up into an article, but suffice to say that Jess's attack was a part of that. The point was to attack, not to win - it's a shibboleth to demonstrate which side she is on. This is one of the reasons why I think Labour has a chance if she wins.
You think transsexuals are approved targets? If we are talking culture war, theyve been running pretty hard guerrilla attacks for at least the last couple of years.
Northern "Not all obsessed with trans people" Powerhouse there.
I agree with all the criticism of Twitter. But it's still a diversion from Giles Coren's incredibly homophobic bullshit about Owen Jones
Why is it homophobic to say an old, gay man would enjoy chasing young dishy men? It could be deemed offensive to Owen Jones and his partner to suggest he would be unfaithful, and is maybe a bit crass and unfunny, but it’s no different to suggesting a heterosexual man would chase young female researchers (which is what the author is claiming he meant)
Coren's comment was homophobic. That's no excuse for people showing up outside his house, but it was a disgusting thing to write.
Why would it be any more or less offensive if Jones were Heterosexual?
It would still have been a very unpleasant thing to write if Jones were heterosexual, but don't forget that homophobic harassment and violence is still quite common (reported incidents are rising). That does make a difference. I take your point, and in a world without prejudice there would be an equivalence, but we don't live in a world without prejudice.
A reasonable point, I can see where you are coming from
“ Yesterday morning, after eleven mostly unhappy and pointless years, I left Twitter. It’s no biggie. Nor is it because of something that has happened on there but rather something that happened in the real world (IRL).
You see, as 2019 turned into 2020, the topic that was trending number one in the UK was not #NYE or even #StormzyHootenanny, but #GilesCoren. Because a piece in The Times carried a quote from me about a Labour activist and Guardian writer called Owen Jones, whom I didn’t know was gay, that Jones declared on Twitter to be homophobic. He has a million followers. They agreed with him. They piled on. That’s fine, I guess. It’s what Twitter is for. And anyway by the end of the following day I had been replaced by #WW3 — phew!
But over the weekend Jones’s followers tweeted “we’ve found your address” and yesterday morning a group of them went round to my house, while I was at work, and started haranguing my wife and children.”
Pity he isn't retiring from the Times too. Talentless supercilious hack employed mainly because of who is father was.
"Did not know that Jones was gay" - I should coco.
Caveat -
Nothing wrong with his food columns. Quite good actually. Always read them.
Rubbish, Giles Coren is one of the most interesting and amusing journalists put there, far more so than the partisan rants of Owen Jones
"Journalist"?
IIUC, he writes restaurant reviews and opinion pieces. I appreciate some think that's journalism, but not me. Interestingly, the same applies to Owen Jones...
I went off on a rant the other day to @NorthernPowerhouse about various publications being care homes for unemployable wealthy people who, if not for nepotism and corruption, would be in a sleeping bag outside the station ranting at passers by. So I am not that distressed.
I am however distressed at the threatening people turning up at their homes, which is just plain wrong.
He writes brilliantly and originally, though I appreciate humourless bores might not be fans.
Given his late father was a millionaire I also doubt he would be homeless even if he never worked a day in his life
I agree with all the criticism of Twitter. But it's still a diversion from Giles Coren's incredibly homophobic bullshit about Owen Jones
Why is it homophobic to say an old, gay man would enjoy chasing young dishy men? It could be deemed offensive to Owen Jones and his partner to suggest he would be unfaithful, and is maybe a bit crass and unfunny, but it’s no different to suggesting a heterosexual man would chase young female researchers (which is what the author is claiming he meant)
I suspect Jones objected to the possible sodomistic reference of 'tight bottoms'.
Sure, but I think the same could be said to a heterosexual man, or woman, with the same intent. It is not complimentary, it is basically calling the target a dirty old so and so, but I don't think it is homophobic because it could be equally offensive if Jones were heterosexual.
I'm sure there's an element of exaggerated offence going on but I am also pretty sure it is homophobic.
If he had written about a Lord eyeing up a female researcher with ample cleavage would that have been heterophobic?
And the House of Commons. It was remarkable that there was none of the organised cheering and barracking that has marred PMQs for the past several years (and which was the previous Speaker's justification for letting PMQs overrun).
I doubt that will last. The opposition are broken men who can only look across in meek silence at the all-conquering Boris, king of the world. Should Boris falter though, the noise and fury will begin again.
Nah. There's nothing to play for. This is how politics used to be many moons ago. The governing party gets to do what it wants and the opposition bides its time until a few weeks before the next GE.
Yes, still a worthy favourite at 1.9. It's him or Nandy for me. 1st pref Nandy.
Best betting play right now IMO is lay RLB at 3.7.
I sense she has little chance. "The Project" is over.
Mike says in his header that there is an appetite for a female leader - but he is getting this from Labour MPs. What of the membership?
What I can`t get a handle on is the extent to which members will be comfortable voting for the one man from the metropolitan elite in London ahead of three women from the north. (I`m discounting Lewis and Thornberry.)
Thoughts?
'the north'? Birmingham? Well, north of London, I suppose! ;-)
And the House of Commons. It was remarkable that there was none of the organised cheering and barracking that has marred PMQs for the past several years (and which was the previous Speaker's justification for letting PMQs overrun).
I doubt that will last. The opposition are broken men who can only look across in meek silence at the all-conquering Boris, king of the world. Should Boris falter though, the noise and fury will begin again.
Nah. There's nothing to play for. This is how politics used to be many moons ago. The governing party gets to do what it wants and the opposition bides its time until a few weeks before the next GE.
Boris is the most powerful PM now since Blair though
"He does say terrible things," says (Sue) Perkins, "and occasionally he gets it wrong. But there's a visceral thrill in watching him drop a clanger in public. Giles is a mixture of innocent schoolboy and belligerent cleric tyrant. I love being with him because as long as I am, I know I won't be the most irritating person in the room."
As a stopped clock is right twice a day, Jeremy Corbyn, for all the fact that he is being ignored over Iran (he is indeed hopelessly morally compromised on the subject), has a really important point about the use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy. Donald Trump has legitimised this. This development is unlikely to be in Britain's interests in the short, medium or long term.
It was a decision made without any consultation of Britain. Good to see that international influence being brought to bear by this Brexity government.
I agree with all the criticism of Twitter. But it's still a diversion from Giles Coren's incredibly homophobic bullshit about Owen Jones
Why is it homophobic to say an old, gay man would enjoy chasing young dishy men? It could be deemed offensive to Owen Jones and his partner to suggest he would be unfaithful, and is maybe a bit crass and unfunny, but it’s no different to suggesting a heterosexual man would chase young female researchers (which is what the author is claiming he meant)
I suspect Jones objected to the possible sodomistic reference of 'tight bottoms'.
Sure, but I think the same could be said to a heterosexual man, or woman, with the same intent. It is not complimentary, it is basically calling the target a dirty old so and so, but I don't think it is homophobic because it could be equally offensive if Jones were heterosexual.
I'm sure there's an element of exaggerated offence going on but I am also pretty sure it is homophobic.
If he had written about a Lord eyeing up a female researcher with ample cleavage would that have been heterophobic?
The guy is gay and the reference was to bottoms and hence it is perfectly sensible to read it as being homophobic. Even if it was not meant as such (cf Danny Baker).
Mike says in his header that there is an appetite for a female leader - but he is getting this from Labour MPs. What of the membership?
What I can`t get a handle on is the extent to which members will be comfortable voting for the one man from the metropolitan elite in London ahead of three women from the north. (I`m discounting Lewis and Thornberry.)
Thoughts?
Well atm I'm just extrapolating how EYE feel. I am a party member and was bought into The Project but now not so much. I also strongly think we should go female so long as there is a quality F candidate. So if what I feel is widespread rather than niche Nandy must have a great chance. Did her at 14 and she is 7 now so smug city but I would not lump on again at 7 since I think Starmer is rightly a hot favourite (and he's my 2nd pref). Best bet right now is IMO lay RLB at less than 4. Enthusiasm for True Left on the wane and she is not personally outstanding. Can't see her winning.
But tonight I'm going to a party meeting to discuss all this so ???
As a stopped clock is right twice a day, Jeremy Corbyn, for all the fact that he is being ignored over Iran (he is indeed hopelessly morally compromised on the subject), has a really important point about the use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy. Donald Trump has legitimised this. This development is unlikely to be in Britain's interests in the short, medium or long term.
It was a decision made without any consultation of Britain. Good to see that international influence being brought to bear by this Brexity government.
The only people the US "informed" was Israel....and it is believed because it was their intel that led to the strike, so it wasn't exactly them being informed, as Israel informing US there was an immediate opportunity, do you want to take it.
What I can`t get a handle on is the extent to which members will be comfortable voting for the one man from the metropolitan elite in London ahead of three women from the north.
That is a good question.
I can see the attraction of Starmer, as most likely to be able to keep the Labour Ship afloat without mutiny from one side or the other.
But, I can also see the membership increasingly uncomfortable with yet again electing a white male.
Female voters in particular may take a harder line on this. We know there was about a 4 per cent gender gap (31 per cent male, 35 per cent female) in the Labour vote in GE 2019.
Are there any numbers on how Labour membership breaks down according to gender?
Coren's piece is clearly a nonsense send up of what Corbyn might do - Jones isn't fat or old (At least I hope 35 isn't considered that old these days !), and it's not even specified if the researchers are male or female. Not homophobic at all.
I read it as homophobic, drawing on the old stereotype of homosexual men as sexual predators. Having seen Coren's statement that he didn't know Jones was gay, I re-read it and, if Coren is telling the truth, I don't really have a problem with it. Same statement, but my interpretation of it and the writer varies depending on what the writer intended, which of course I cannot know.
Given that, I'd give Coren the benefit of the doubt, but I would expect him (if what he sad was true) to be horrified on discovering that Jones was gay - recognising how that changes the interpretation of what he wrote - and to have quickly apologised and clarified. I'm not aware of that having happened.
Comments
It was designed to be a conduit for outrage.
"The problem isn't guns. The problem is a lot of people who use guns appear to have no self-discipline whatsoever."
Reminded me slightly of Lewis Hamilton's account of meetings with his engineers.
"I go in a meeting with them at the factory and those guys can sit in meetings for hours and stay focused. I have a window of, say, 23 minutes or something like that. As soon as I get there, it's all going over my head. They know. I say: 'Look, I gotta get up, go for a pee, have a coffee or something and I can come back.' And they get another 23 minutes."
Although TBF the Giles one is different class.
Sad to say, but early indications are that this is a repeat of MH17
https://youtu.be/e6cRpimLM6o
The design means it's a conduit of outrage but that was it's purpose or it's original design.
People have a habit of seeing malice is what is often just an accidental use case.
Self definition is a egotistical trap, I don’t get why people are so enthusiastic to constrain themselves. It’s so transparent that all they are doing is pleading for people to see them in the way they describe themselves,
They have to be called out for what they are. Exposed. Defeated.
JP should have had the support of many more political colleagues. But she didn't. Too many are scared to confront a particular demographic at best or secretly sharing their bigotry at worst.
It is twitter's responsibility to monitor this.
twitter pays £ 41,000 tax on UK revenue of £ 100 million (according to the Evening Standard). And then outsources the job of monitoring to our police service.
We should bill twitter for the cost of police and court time.
There's no direct scheduled flights from Kiev to Canada (but plenty from Dubai or Doha), and not much Oil & Gas activity in Ukraine - which is the only thing I'd expect Western nationals to be doing in Iran, except perhaps some private security.
This man does not deserve to be carefully listened to.
Her actions made it easier for the protesters to recruit more moderate people to their cause, just by playing that video to them. Her behaviour therefore actually makes it much harder to defeat them. She has a symbiotic relationship with them, and I doubt she lacks the intelligence to understand this.
Maybe you should watch the video I posted earlier about how Wigan's, council, MP and police were successful in defeating an example of bigotry by keeping their heads and working hard, not by shouting at people. If Phillips was serious about fighting bigotry, that's what she would do.
about what it is about. Theres just no point pretending theres some nice middle ground on this issue and responding to him accordingly after you've done so. I say that as not a fan of Phillips and a fan of middlegrounds.
Sometimes to defeat such things you need to be subtler. But sometimes you do have to draw a line in the sand and confront, otherwise they believe you wont fight them at all.
It is difficult to keep track of a weathervane in blustery conditions.
Her performance on GMB yesterday was poor and she showed some of the crabbiness that Corbyn had in abundance when under pressure from Piers Morgan, of all people.
I have put a fiver on Phillips at 14-1 because I think her odds will come in but that is all.
The man is shocking on twitter.
Excellent by the speaker
Long Bailey would have a chance of beating Phillips she would not have with Starmer if they get to the final round, much as Portillo might have beaten IDS but Clarke would not
I'll have to write all this up into an article, but suffice to say that Jess's attack was a part of that. The point was to attack, not to win - it's a shibboleth to demonstrate which side she is on. This is one of the reasons why I think Labour has a chance if she wins.
(Sorry, I know it's trolling, but I couldn't resist it...
What I can`t get a handle on is the extent to which members will be comfortable voting for the one man from the metropolitan elite in London ahead of three women from the north. (I`m discounting Lewis and Thornberry.)
Thoughts?
I’ll set my ferrets on you if you repeat such a falsehood.
IIUC, he writes restaurant reviews and opinion pieces. I appreciate some think that's journalism, but not me. Interestingly, the same applies to Owen Jones...
I went off on a rant the other day to @NorthernPowerhouse about various publications being care homes for unemployable wealthy people who, if not for nepotism and corruption, would be in a sleeping bag outside the station ranting at passers by. So I am not that distressed.
I am however distressed at the threatening people turning up at their homes, which is just plain wrong.
Not homophobic at all.
Given his late father was a millionaire I also doubt he would be homeless even if he never worked a day in his life
The SNP and the Tories under Johnson are more similar than either party would want to admit.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/what-makes-coren-so-cross-1986723.html
It was a decision made without any consultation of Britain. Good to see that international influence being brought to bear by this Brexity government.
And tha'll have to catch me first young man with t'ferrets.
But tonight I'm going to a party meeting to discuss all this so ???
Nowt to do with Brexit.
I can see the attraction of Starmer, as most likely to be able to keep the Labour Ship afloat without mutiny from one side or the other.
But, I can also see the membership increasingly uncomfortable with yet again electing a white male.
Female voters in particular may take a harder line on this. We know there was about a 4 per cent gender gap (31 per cent male, 35 per cent female) in the Labour vote in GE 2019.
Are there any numbers on how Labour membership breaks down according to gender?
Given that, I'd give Coren the benefit of the doubt, but I would expect him (if what he sad was true) to be horrified on discovering that Jones was gay - recognising how that changes the interpretation of what he wrote - and to have quickly apologised and clarified. I'm not aware of that having happened.