I've just read many of Ian Miles Cheong tweets, Lady G, and his concerns about wokeness, BLM and cancel culture are remarakably similar to yours. He, like you, also thinks the odd film about the odd nutter behaving badly symbolises the end of civilisation as we know it.
Are you by any chance related to Mr Cheong? I think we should know.
lol. No. Cheong is quite a well known activist/journalist
By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.
It is appalling.
I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.
I'm not woke, I just believe in treating everyone as an individual.
Treating someone different based upon their skin colour is stupid.
The same reason I am prepared to unequivocally say "black lives matter" is the same reason I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit.
It was a sincere compliment (and I don't give you many).
But if you want to throw it back in my face.
Not throwing anything back, just saying as I thought to be "woke" you had to believe in "cultural appropriation" nowadays.
To me those who believe in "cultural appropriation" are racists.
As always it's case by case.
You don't want the Minstrels back. I don't want the Minstrels back.
But other cases are less clear.
But some take it to extremes - a white person eating a taco is cultural appropriation.
To me, cultural appropriation is just memes doing their work. If the meme is successful, it will thrive in multiple environments and be adapted to those (the blues, rock'n'roll, rap); if it is less successful, it dies out (minstrel shows).
Of course, some 'bad' memes also survive. But the way to challenge them is with better memes, not by labeling them.
By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.
It is appalling.
I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.
I'm not woke, I just believe in treating everyone as an individual.
Treating someone different based upon their skin colour is stupid.
The same reason I am prepared to unequivocally say "black lives matter" is the same reason I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit.
It was a sincere compliment (and I don't give you many).
But if you want to throw it back in my face.
Not throwing anything back, just saying as I thought to be "woke" you had to believe in "cultural appropriation" nowadays.
To me those who believe in "cultural appropriation" are racists.
As always it's case by case.
You don't want the Minstrels back. I don't want the Minstrels back.
But other cases are less clear.
But some take it to extremes - a white person eating a taco is cultural appropriation.
To me, cultural appropriation is just memes doing their work. If the meme is successful, it will thrive in multiple environments and be adapted to those (the blues, rock'n'roll, rap); if it is less successful, it dies out (minstrel shows).
Of course, some 'bad' memes also survive. But the way to challenge them is with better memes, not by labeling them.
For me there's no such thing as "cultural appropriation". I think its a load of bollocks.
Blackface is racism, as simple as that. Minstrels were never part of black culture that were appropriated it was simply racist blackface.
A white person doing something from another race's culture is simply a part of multiculturalism.
By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.
It is appalling.
I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.
I'm not woke, I just believe in treating everyone as an individual.
Treating someone different based upon their skin colour is stupid.
The same reason I am prepared to unequivocally say "black lives matter" is the same reason I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit.
It was a sincere compliment (and I don't give you many).
But if you want to throw it back in my face.
Not throwing anything back, just saying as I thought to be "woke" you had to believe in "cultural appropriation" nowadays.
To me those who believe in "cultural appropriation" are racists.
As always it's case by case.
You don't want the Minstrels back. I don't want the Minstrels back.
But other cases are less clear.
But some take it to extremes - a white person eating a taco is cultural appropriation.
To me, cultural appropriation is just memes doing their work. If the meme is successful, it will thrive in multiple environments and be adapted to those (the blues, rock'n'roll, rap); if it is less successful, it dies out (minstrel shows).
Of course, some 'bad' memes also survive. But the way to challenge them is with better memes, not by labeling them.
As an adopted American, how do you feel about the statue-toppling? Columbus, Lincoln, Washington, etc?
All I can hear on Twitter is a very partisan argument - insane Trumpites going even madder, who are outnumbered by the American Left cheering it all on.
Is there any middle ground opinion on all this? Or is it all polarised?
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
Yes? it's not been testedf in the courts, as I said, and there have been legal opinions from constitutional law specialists which differ from the standard UK Government doctrine.
If the courts uphold the London line, then the SNP is no worse off, and the democratic deficit is left in no doubt. If they don't (and remember what Ms Cherry and her allies did in Edinburgh re prorogation), then ...
You can find a ‘constitutional expert’ who will say anything. In this case, like Cherry, confirming their own wishful thinking. Dominic Cummings is not alone in thinking the law says what he wants it to say.
The law is crystal clear that constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster and the Scottish Executive themselves conceded that over the previous referendum. The chances of that being overturned by a court that hasn’t been bribed, bullied, or blackmailed are zero.
The fact that single issue fanatics like Cherry think otherwise isn’t proof of anything.
The SNP would be far better advised standing in 2021 on a manifesto stating that if they or they and the Greens combined get a majority they will again petition for the necessary powers. Because that really would be difficult to refuse.
And that’s what Sturgeon seems to be doing.
The Scottish Government was not called the Executive in 2014 (to be a PB pedant).
The quesiton is whether Scottish constitutional law has elements in it which make the London doctrine untenable, certainly in a Scottish legal context. For instance, the doctrine of sovereignty withj the people rathe rthan with King and Parliament. I don't know the answer, and we won't know till the court case, but remember that Scots law doesn't always give the answer London wants (as with prorogation).
I'm slightly puzzled at your suggestion re 2021 as there is already a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament elected on the basis of having a referendum, with the No to Indyref Party (aka Ruth Davidson's lot) thrashed in the same election. And a majority of Westminster representation (which Mrs T thought was ample reason alone to concede independence, remember). In any case, Mr Johnson has alkready made it clear he'd refuse.
Anyway there is herring in oatmeal frying and potatoes and runner beans to go with it, so I'll say goodnight - have a nice evening all.
We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.
Now, a few points to note:
1) There is no ‘clear and sustained evidence’ that independence is the preferred option of a majority. There is limited and marginal evidence that it may be.
2) Yes, you could argue legitimately that the final subclause applies. However, Sturgeon herself, having raised it, dropped this demand after 2017, after the SNP’s unexpectedly lacklustre performance indicated a lack of enthusiasm for it.
3) But the key words are at the start - ‘should have the right.’ That’s an admission it doesn’t have that right. Otherwise, they would have said, ‘We contend the Scottish Parliament has the right...’
So I’m afraid I don’t buy that argument, and clearly Sturgeon doesn’t either from the way she is playing the longer game.
The correct approach is to say in the next manifesto, ‘We contend the 2016 election is a significant and material change in the situation of the U.K., and in light of both this and the fact the promises of the U.K. government on extra powers for Holyrood have not been honoured, the first act of a returned SNP government will be to petition the U.K. government for a further referendum on independence, with a view to challenging any refusal through the courts.’
And do you know what? I reckon (a) they would win the election and (b) Johnson would fold.
But an attempt at a wildcat referendum on the back of some of the more, shall we say, obsessive elements in the party wouldn’t end well for anybody.
If it is legal, whether it's under Scots alw or not, it is not a wildcat refertendum. And a political party manifesto is not an act of constitutional law.
But some interesting thoughts re strategies. Yet what makes you think Mr Johnson would fold? Why should he? He could block the court case, and change the law meanwhile, as his predecessor did with the Brexit legislation.
Because ultimately Johnson does what is best for Johnson. And getting rid of a recalcitrant Scotland makes it much easier boh for him to pose as a champion of democracy and to hold power at Westminster.
That’s to leave aside the fact that refusing it under such circumstances could - and should - be considered a breach of Scotland’s right to self-determination.
Thanks for that - and yet, would Mr Johnson want to pose as the worst PM since Lord North? The one who destroyed the UK?
I've just read many of Ian Miles Cheong tweets, Lady G, and his concerns about wokeness, BLM and cancel culture are remarakably similar to yours. He, like you, also thinks the odd film about the odd nutter behaving badly symbolises the end of civilisation as we know it.
Are you by any chance related to Mr Cheong? I think we should know.
It's sweet that you think only one or two people object to this complete fucking lunacy.
By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.
It is appalling.
I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.
I'm not woke, I just believe in treating everyone as an individual.
Treating someone different based upon their skin colour is stupid.
The same reason I am prepared to unequivocally say "black lives matter" is the same reason I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit.
It was a sincere compliment (and I don't give you many).
But if you want to throw it back in my face.
Not throwing anything back, just saying as I thought to be "woke" you had to believe in "cultural appropriation" nowadays.
To me those who believe in "cultural appropriation" are racists.
As always it's case by case.
You don't want the Minstrels back. I don't want the Minstrels back.
But other cases are less clear.
But some take it to extremes - a white person eating a taco is cultural appropriation.
To me, cultural appropriation is just memes doing their work. If the meme is successful, it will thrive in multiple environments and be adapted to those (the blues, rock'n'roll, rap); if it is less successful, it dies out (minstrel shows).
Of course, some 'bad' memes also survive. But the way to challenge them is with better memes, not by labeling them.
As an adopted American, how do you feel about the statue-toppling? Columbus, Lincoln, Washington, etc?
All I can hear on Twitter is a very partisan argument - insane Trumpites going even madder, who are outnumbered by the American Left cheering it all on.
Is there any middle ground opinion on all this? Or is it all polarised?
By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.
It is appalling.
I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.
I'm not woke, I just believe in treating everyone as an individual.
Treating someone different based upon their skin colour is stupid.
The same reason I am prepared to unequivocally say "black lives matter" is the same reason I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit.
It was a sincere compliment (and I don't give you many).
But if you want to throw it back in my face.
Not throwing anything back, just saying as I thought to be "woke" you had to believe in "cultural appropriation" nowadays.
To me those who believe in "cultural appropriation" are racists.
As always it's case by case.
You don't want the Minstrels back. I don't want the Minstrels back.
But other cases are less clear.
But some take it to extremes - a white person eating a taco is cultural appropriation.
To me, cultural appropriation is just memes doing their work. If the meme is successful, it will thrive in multiple environments and be adapted to those (the blues, rock'n'roll, rap); if it is less successful, it dies out (minstrel shows).
Of course, some 'bad' memes also survive. But the way to challenge them is with better memes, not by labeling them.
As an adopted American, how do you feel about the statue-toppling? Columbus, Lincoln, Washington, etc?
All I can hear on Twitter is a very partisan argument - insane Trumpites going even madder, who are outnumbered by the American Left cheering it all on.
Is there any middle ground opinion on all this? Or is it all polarised?
You're looking for a balanced middle ground on Twitter?
I think I might see where you're going wrong . . .
By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.
It is appalling.
I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.
I'm not woke, I just believe in treating everyone as an individual.
Treating someone different based upon their skin colour is stupid.
The same reason I am prepared to unequivocally say "black lives matter" is the same reason I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit.
It was a sincere compliment (and I don't give you many).
But if you want to throw it back in my face.
Not throwing anything back, just saying as I thought to be "woke" you had to believe in "cultural appropriation" nowadays.
To me those who believe in "cultural appropriation" are racists.
As always it's case by case.
You don't want the Minstrels back. I don't want the Minstrels back.
But other cases are less clear.
But some take it to extremes - a white person eating a taco is cultural appropriation.
To me, cultural appropriation is just memes doing their work. If the meme is successful, it will thrive in multiple environments and be adapted to those (the blues, rock'n'roll, rap); if it is less successful, it dies out (minstrel shows).
Of course, some 'bad' memes also survive. But the way to challenge them is with better memes, not by labeling them.
As an adopted American, how do you feel about the statue-toppling? Columbus, Lincoln, Washington, etc?
All I can hear on Twitter is a very partisan argument - insane Trumpites going even madder, who are outnumbered by the American Left cheering it all on.
Is there any middle ground opinion on all this? Or is it all polarised?
You're looking for a balanced middle ground on Twitter?
I think I might see where you're going wrong . . .
Where else? Facebook is no better!
I am trying to educate myself as to what is happening in America, as it is quite radical. And interesting.
It's their country and they can do what they like, they can tear down every statue in every state if they wish, I just want to find out why, and who approves, or doesn't. Very difficult to tell this through the fog of the culture war.
By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.
It is appalling.
I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.
I'm not woke, I just believe in treating everyone as an individual.
Treating someone different based upon their skin colour is stupid.
The same reason I am prepared to unequivocally say "black lives matter" is the same reason I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit.
It was a sincere compliment (and I don't give you many).
But if you want to throw it back in my face.
Not throwing anything back, just saying as I thought to be "woke" you had to believe in "cultural appropriation" nowadays.
To me those who believe in "cultural appropriation" are racists.
As always it's case by case.
You don't want the Minstrels back. I don't want the Minstrels back.
But other cases are less clear.
But some take it to extremes - a white person eating a taco is cultural appropriation.
To me, cultural appropriation is just memes doing their work. If the meme is successful, it will thrive in multiple environments and be adapted to those (the blues, rock'n'roll, rap); if it is less successful, it dies out (minstrel shows).
Of course, some 'bad' memes also survive. But the way to challenge them is with better memes, not by labeling them.
As an adopted American, how do you feel about the statue-toppling? Columbus, Lincoln, Washington, etc?
All I can hear on Twitter is a very partisan argument - insane Trumpites going even madder, who are outnumbered by the American Left cheering it all on.
Is there any middle ground opinion on all this? Or is it all polarised?
Depends on the statue, and the means.
For example, I’m astonished that effing Taney is still hanging around....
By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.
It is appalling.
I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.
I'm not woke, I just believe in treating everyone as an individual.
Treating someone different based upon their skin colour is stupid.
The same reason I am prepared to unequivocally say "black lives matter" is the same reason I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit.
It was a sincere compliment (and I don't give you many).
But if you want to throw it back in my face.
Not throwing anything back, just saying as I thought to be "woke" you had to believe in "cultural appropriation" nowadays.
To me those who believe in "cultural appropriation" are racists.
As always it's case by case.
You don't want the Minstrels back. I don't want the Minstrels back.
But other cases are less clear.
But some take it to extremes - a white person eating a taco is cultural appropriation.
To me, cultural appropriation is just memes doing their work. If the meme is successful, it will thrive in multiple environments and be adapted to those (the blues, rock'n'roll, rap); if it is less successful, it dies out (minstrel shows).
Of course, some 'bad' memes also survive. But the way to challenge them is with better memes, not by labeling them.
For me there's no such thing as "cultural appropriation". I think its a load of bollocks.
Blackface is racism, as simple as that. Minstrels were never part of black culture that were appropriated it was simply racist blackface.
A white person doing something from another race's culture is simply a part of multiculturalism.
One thing Ive never understood about cultural appropriation is what people whose parents come from different cultures are supposed to do/allowed to do?
I've just read many of Ian Miles Cheong tweets, Lady G, and his concerns about wokeness, BLM and cancel culture are remarakably similar to yours. He, like you, also thinks the odd film about the odd nutter behaving badly symbolises the end of civilisation as we know it.
Are you by any chance related to Mr Cheong? I think we should know.
It's sweet that you think only one or two people object to this complete fucking lunacy.
Your style is different from Lady G's, as can be seen from your sentence.
I think most people object to this "lunacy", including me. Where we differ is that I think this lunacy represents the views of a very small, though vocal, minority of people.
They are no more representative of the political left than Tommy Robinson is of the right.
By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.
It is appalling.
I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.
I'm not woke, I just believe in treating everyone as an individual.
Treating someone different based upon their skin colour is stupid.
The same reason I am prepared to unequivocally say "black lives matter" is the same reason I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit.
It was a sincere compliment (and I don't give you many).
But if you want to throw it back in my face.
Not throwing anything back, just saying as I thought to be "woke" you had to believe in "cultural appropriation" nowadays.
To me those who believe in "cultural appropriation" are racists.
As always it's case by case.
You don't want the Minstrels back. I don't want the Minstrels back.
But other cases are less clear.
But some take it to extremes - a white person eating a taco is cultural appropriation.
To me, cultural appropriation is just memes doing their work. If the meme is successful, it will thrive in multiple environments and be adapted to those (the blues, rock'n'roll, rap); if it is less successful, it dies out (minstrel shows).
Of course, some 'bad' memes also survive. But the way to challenge them is with better memes, not by labeling them.
For me there's no such thing as "cultural appropriation". I think its a load of bollocks.
Blackface is racism, as simple as that. Minstrels were never part of black culture that were appropriated it was simply racist blackface.
A white person doing something from another race's culture is simply a part of multiculturalism.
One thing Ive never understood about cultural appropriation is what people whose parents come from different cultures are supposed to do/allowed to do?
By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.
It is appalling.
I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.
I'm not woke, I just believe in treating everyone as an individual.
Treating someone different based upon their skin colour is stupid.
The same reason I am prepared to unequivocally say "black lives matter" is the same reason I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit.
It was a sincere compliment (and I don't give you many).
But if you want to throw it back in my face.
Not throwing anything back, just saying as I thought to be "woke" you had to believe in "cultural appropriation" nowadays.
To me those who believe in "cultural appropriation" are racists.
As always it's case by case.
You don't want the Minstrels back. I don't want the Minstrels back.
But other cases are less clear.
But some take it to extremes - a white person eating a taco is cultural appropriation.
To me, cultural appropriation is just memes doing their work. If the meme is successful, it will thrive in multiple environments and be adapted to those (the blues, rock'n'roll, rap); if it is less successful, it dies out (minstrel shows).
Of course, some 'bad' memes also survive. But the way to challenge them is with better memes, not by labeling them.
For me there's no such thing as "cultural appropriation". I think its a load of bollocks.
Blackface is racism, as simple as that. Minstrels were never part of black culture that were appropriated it was simply racist blackface.
A white person doing something from another race's culture is simply a part of multiculturalism.
One thing Ive never understood about cultural appropriation is what people whose parents come from different cultures are supposed to do/allowed to do?
I've just read many of Ian Miles Cheong tweets, Lady G, and his concerns about wokeness, BLM and cancel culture are remarakably similar to yours. He, like you, also thinks the odd film about the odd nutter behaving badly symbolises the end of civilisation as we know it.
Are you by any chance related to Mr Cheong? I think we should know.
It's sweet that you think only one or two people object to this complete fucking lunacy.
Your style is different from Lady G's, as can be seen from your sentence.
I think most people object to this "lunacy", including me. Where we differ is that I think this lunacy represents the views of a very small, though vocal, minority of people.
They are no more representative of the political left than Tommy Robinson is of the right.
I agree with you. This is a tiny minority.
But this revolution is being driven, in part, by the extremists, at the moment - or so it seems to me. So the views of a small number of unbalanced people are quite important. Unfortunately
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
Yes? it's not been testedf in the courts, as I said, and there have been legal opinions from constitutional law specialists which differ from the standard UK Government doctrine.
If the courts uphold the London line, then the SNP is no worse off, and the democratic deficit is left in no doubt. If they don't (and remember what Ms Cherry and her allies did in Edinburgh re prorogation), then ...
You can find a ‘constitutional expert’ who will say anything. In this case, like Cherry, confirming their own wishful thinking. Dominic Cummings is not alone in thinking the law says what he wants it to say.
The law is crystal clear that constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster and the Scottish Executive themselves conceded that over the previous referendum. The chances of that being overturned by a court that hasn’t been bribed, bullied, or blackmailed are zero.
The fact that single issue fanatics like Cherry think otherwise isn’t proof of anything.
The SNP would be far better advised standing in 2021 on a manifesto stating that if they or they and the Greens combined get a majority they will again petition for the necessary powers. Because that really would be difficult to refuse.
And that’s what Sturgeon seems to be doing.
The Scottish Government was not called the Executive in 2014 (to be a PB pedant).
The quesiton is whether Scottish constitutional law has elements in it which make the London doctrine untenable, certainly in a Scottish legal context. For instance, the doctrine of sovereignty withj the people rathe rthan with King and Parliament. I don't know the answer, and we won't know till the court case, but remember that Scots law doesn't always give the answer London wants (as with prorogation).
I'm slightly puzzled at your suggestion re 2021 as there is already a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament elected on the basis of having a referendum, with the No to Indyref Party (aka Ruth Davidson's lot) thrashed in the same election. And a majority of Westminster representation (which Mrs T thought was ample reason alone to concede independence, remember). In any case, Mr Johnson has alkready made it clear he'd refuse.
Anyway there is herring in oatmeal frying and potatoes and runner beans to go with it, so I'll say goodnight - have a nice evening all.
We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.
Now, a few points to note:
1) There is no ‘clear and sustained evidence’ that independence is the preferred option of a majority. There is limited and marginal evidence that it may be.
2) Yes, you could argue legitimately that the final subclause applies. However, Sturgeon herself, having raised it, dropped this demand after 2017, after the SNP’s unexpectedly lacklustre performance indicated a lack of enthusiasm for it.
3) But the key words are at the start - ‘should have the right.’ That’s an admission it doesn’t have that right. Otherwise, they would have said, ‘We contend the Scottish Parliament has the right...’
So I’m afraid I don’t buy that argument, and clearly Sturgeon doesn’t either from the way she is playing the longer game.
The correct approach is to say in the next manifesto, ‘We contend the 2016 election is a significant and material change in the situation of the U.K., and in light of both this and the fact the promises of the U.K. government on extra powers for Holyrood have not been honoured, the first act of a returned SNP government will be to petition the U.K. government for a further referendum on independence, with a view to challenging any refusal through the courts.’
And do you know what? I reckon (a) they would win the election and (b) Johnson would fold.
But an attempt at a wildcat referendum on the back of some of the more, shall we say, obsessive elements in the party wouldn’t end well for anybody.
If it is legal, whether it's under Scots alw or not, it is not a wildcat refertendum. And a political party manifesto is not an act of constitutional law.
But some interesting thoughts re strategies. Yet what makes you think Mr Johnson would fold? Why should he? He could block the court case, and change the law meanwhile, as his predecessor did with the Brexit legislation.
Because ultimately Johnson does what is best for Johnson. And getting rid of a recalcitrant Scotland makes it much easier boh for him to pose as a champion of democracy and to hold power at Westminster.
That’s to leave aside the fact that refusing it under such circumstances could - and should - be considered a breach of Scotland’s right to self-determination.
Thanks for that - and yet, would Mr Johnson want to pose as the worst PM since Lord North? The one who destroyed the UK?
If you let him keep the grace and favour tied cottages, chauffer driven Jaguars and manservants I don't think he will mind.
I dunno they've had racist cops for two hundred years and it's taken them that long to tire of them, apparently.
And yet despite that anger might it not be possible to protest police without mocking their education and calling people a judas?
It might. It might be possible to not burst into someone's house in the middle of the night and gun them down in their bed. It might be possible to not kneel on someone's neck until they're dead. It might be possible to be a retired cop and not chase some jogger down in your pick up truck and shoot them in the back. None of these cops is going to wind up dead because some snobby college students have said something nasty to them.
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
Yes? it's not been testedf in the courts, as I said, and there have been legal opinions from constitutional law specialists which differ from the standard UK Government doctrine.
If the courts uphold the London line, then the SNP is no worse off, and the democratic deficit is left in no doubt. If they don't (and remember what Ms Cherry and her allies did in Edinburgh re prorogation), then ...
You can find a ‘constitutional expert’ who will say anything. In this case, like Cherry, confirming their own wishful thinking. Dominic Cummings is not alone in thinking the law says what he wants it to say.
The law is crystal clear that constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster and the Scottish Executive themselves conceded that over the previous referendum. The chances of that being overturned by a court that hasn’t been bribed, bullied, or blackmailed are zero.
The fact that single issue fanatics like Cherry think otherwise isn’t proof of anything.
The SNP would be far better advised standing in 2021 on a manifesto stating that if they or they and the Greens combined get a majority they will again petition for the necessary powers. Because that really would be difficult to refuse.
And that’s what Sturgeon seems to be doing.
The Scottish Government was not called the Executive in 2014 (to be a PB pedant).
The quesiton is whether Scottish constitutional law has elements in it which make the London doctrine untenable, certainly in a Scottish legal context. For instance, the doctrine of sovereignty withj the people rathe rthan with King and Parliament. I don't know the answer, and we won't know till the court case, but remember that Scots law doesn't always give the answer London wants (as with prorogation).
I'm slightly puzzled at your suggestion re 2021 as there is already a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament elected on the basis of having a referendum, with the No to Indyref Party (aka Ruth Davidson's lot) thrashed in the same election. And a majority of Westminster representation (which Mrs T thought was ample reason alone to concede independence, remember). In any case, Mr Johnson has alkready made it clear he'd refuse.
Anyway there is herring in oatmeal frying and potatoes and runner beans to go with it, so I'll say goodnight - have a nice evening all.
We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.
Now, a few points to note:
1) There is no ‘clear and sustained evidence’ that independence is the preferred option of a majority. There is limited and marginal evidence that it may be.
2) Yes, you could argue legitimately that the final subclause applies. However, Sturgeon herself, having raised it, dropped this demand after 2017, after the SNP’s unexpectedly lacklustre performance indicated a lack of enthusiasm for it.
3) But the key words are at the start - ‘should have the right.’ That’s an admission it doesn’t have that right. Otherwise, they would have said, ‘We contend the Scottish Parliament has the right...’
So I’m afraid I don’t buy that argument, and clearly Sturgeon doesn’t either from the way she is playing the longer game.
The correct approach is to say in the next manifesto, ‘We contend the 2016 election is a significant and material change in the situation of the U.K., and in light of both this and the fact the promises of the U.K. government on extra powers for Holyrood have not been honoured, the first act of a returned SNP government will be to petition the U.K. government for a further referendum on independence, with a view to challenging any refusal through the courts.’
And do you know what? I reckon (a) they would win the election and (b) Johnson would fold.
But an attempt at a wildcat referendum on the back of some of the more, shall we say, obsessive elements in the party wouldn’t end well for anybody.
If it is legal, whether it's under Scots alw or not, it is not a wildcat refertendum. And a political party manifesto is not an act of constitutional law.
But some interesting thoughts re strategies. Yet what makes you think Mr Johnson would fold? Why should he? He could block the court case, and change the law meanwhile, as his predecessor did with the Brexit legislation.
Because ultimately Johnson does what is best for Johnson. And getting rid of a recalcitrant Scotland makes it much easier boh for him to pose as a champion of democracy and to hold power at Westminster.
That’s to leave aside the fact that refusing it under such circumstances could - and should - be considered a breach of Scotland’s right to self-determination.
Thanks for that - and yet, would Mr Johnson want to pose as the worst PM since Lord North? The one who destroyed the UK?
How often do I have to remind people that Portland, Goderich, Aberdeen, Chamberlain and Brown all post-date North?
I dunno they've had racist cops for two hundred years and it's taken them that long to tire of them, apparently.
And yet despite that anger might it not be possible to protest police without mocking their education and calling people a judas?
It might. It might be possible to not burst into someone's house in the middle of the night and gun them down in their bed. It might be possible to not kneel on someone's neck until they're dead. It might be possible to be a retired cop and not chase some jogger down in your pick up truck and shoot them in the back. None of these cops is going to wind up dead because some snobby college students have said something nasty to them.
By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.
It is appalling.
I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.
I'm not woke, I just believe in treating everyone as an individual.
Treating someone different based upon their skin colour is stupid.
The same reason I am prepared to unequivocally say "black lives matter" is the same reason I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit.
It was a sincere compliment (and I don't give you many).
But if you want to throw it back in my face.
Not throwing anything back, just saying as I thought to be "woke" you had to believe in "cultural appropriation" nowadays.
To me those who believe in "cultural appropriation" are racists.
As always it's case by case.
You don't want the Minstrels back. I don't want the Minstrels back.
But other cases are less clear.
But some take it to extremes - a white person eating a taco is cultural appropriation.
To me, cultural appropriation is just memes doing their work. If the meme is successful, it will thrive in multiple environments and be adapted to those (the blues, rock'n'roll, rap); if it is less successful, it dies out (minstrel shows).
Of course, some 'bad' memes also survive. But the way to challenge them is with better memes, not by labeling them.
For me there's no such thing as "cultural appropriation". I think its a load of bollocks.
Blackface is racism, as simple as that. Minstrels were never part of black culture that were appropriated it was simply racist blackface.
A white person doing something from another race's culture is simply a part of multiculturalism.
I guess we are saying the same thing in different ways. Cultural appropriation is just a lazy, value-judgment-heavy way of talking about how ideas spread and are used.
I dunno they've had racist cops for two hundred years and it's taken them that long to tire of them, apparently.
And yet despite that anger might it not be possible to protest police without mocking their education and calling people a judas?
It might. It might be possible to not burst into someone's house in the middle of the night and gun them down in their bed. It might be possible to not kneel on someone's neck until they're dead. It might be possible to be a retired cop and not chase some jogger down in your pick up truck and shoot them in the back. None of these cops is going to wind up dead because some snobby college students have said something nasty to them.
Eloquently put.
Is Onlylivingboy American? He seems to use a lot of American vernacular.
By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.
It is appalling.
I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.
I'm not woke, I just believe in treating everyone as an individual.
Treating someone different based upon their skin colour is stupid.
The same reason I am prepared to unequivocally say "black lives matter" is the same reason I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit.
It was a sincere compliment (and I don't give you many).
But if you want to throw it back in my face.
Not throwing anything back, just saying as I thought to be "woke" you had to believe in "cultural appropriation" nowadays.
To me those who believe in "cultural appropriation" are racists.
As always it's case by case.
You don't want the Minstrels back. I don't want the Minstrels back.
But other cases are less clear.
But some take it to extremes - a white person eating a taco is cultural appropriation.
To me, cultural appropriation is just memes doing their work. If the meme is successful, it will thrive in multiple environments and be adapted to those (the blues, rock'n'roll, rap); if it is less successful, it dies out (minstrel shows).
Of course, some 'bad' memes also survive. But the way to challenge them is with better memes, not by labeling them.
For me there's no such thing as "cultural appropriation". I think its a load of bollocks.
Blackface is racism, as simple as that. Minstrels were never part of black culture that were appropriated it was simply racist blackface.
A white person doing something from another race's culture is simply a part of multiculturalism.
One thing Ive never understood about cultural appropriation is what people whose parents come from different cultures are supposed to do/allowed to do?
And how university students manage to complain about it. A university is a machine for cultural appropriation. Without it Oxford would teach nothing but druidic astronomy, and herb lore.
I've just read many of Ian Miles Cheong tweets, Lady G, and his concerns about wokeness, BLM and cancel culture are remarakably similar to yours. He, like you, also thinks the odd film about the odd nutter behaving badly symbolises the end of civilisation as we know it.
Are you by any chance related to Mr Cheong? I think we should know.
It's sweet that you think only one or two people object to this complete fucking lunacy.
Your style is different from Lady G's, as can be seen from your sentence.
I think most people object to this "lunacy", including me. Where we differ is that I think this lunacy represents the views of a very small, though vocal, minority of people.
They are no more representative of the political left than Tommy Robinson is of the right.
I agree with you. This is a tiny minority.
But this revolution is being driven, in part, by the extremists, at the moment - or so it seems to me. So the views of a small number of unbalanced people are quite important. Unfortunately
What revolution? There is none. Just some people out for trouble, and a much large number of people wanting to make the world a better place. The troublemakers won't win.
When the extremists are on the other side, nobody thinks a revolution is imminent. When the National Front went around "Paki-bashing" in the 1970s and early 80s, and subsequently the BNP, EDL and now the hilariously-named Democratic Lads Football Alliance displayed their racism and hate, was that a sign of an imminent revolution or the end of civilisation? No, it's only the left-wing loonies that could bring the whole lot tumbling down, of course.
It's all nonsense, there won't be radical change, but hopefully black Americans might get a better deal than they get now and the culture of the USA police will improve. And of course, Trump will go.
By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.
It is appalling.
I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.
I'm not woke, I just believe in treating everyone as an individual.
Treating someone different based upon their skin colour is stupid.
The same reason I am prepared to unequivocally say "black lives matter" is the same reason I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit.
It was a sincere compliment (and I don't give you many).
But if you want to throw it back in my face.
Not throwing anything back, just saying as I thought to be "woke" you had to believe in "cultural appropriation" nowadays.
To me those who believe in "cultural appropriation" are racists.
As always it's case by case.
You don't want the Minstrels back. I don't want the Minstrels back.
But other cases are less clear.
But some take it to extremes - a white person eating a taco is cultural appropriation.
To me, cultural appropriation is just memes doing their work. If the meme is successful, it will thrive in multiple environments and be adapted to those (the blues, rock'n'roll, rap); if it is less successful, it dies out (minstrel shows).
Of course, some 'bad' memes also survive. But the way to challenge them is with better memes, not by labeling them.
As an adopted American, how do you feel about the statue-toppling? Columbus, Lincoln, Washington, etc?
All I can hear on Twitter is a very partisan argument - insane Trumpites going even madder, who are outnumbered by the American Left cheering it all on.
Is there any middle ground opinion on all this? Or is it all polarised?
Personally, I have no problem with tearing down statues - it's happened throughout history as dynasties change or as ideas get ousted.
But I'd prefer they were taken down from public spaces and placed in museums rather than destroyed. And I do hate the concept of judging people on the mores of today, rather than of the age in which they lived.
I dunno they've had racist cops for two hundred years and it's taken them that long to tire of them, apparently.
And yet despite that anger might it not be possible to protest police without mocking their education and calling people a judas?
It might. It might be possible to not burst into someone's house in the middle of the night and gun them down in their bed. It might be possible to not kneel on someone's neck until they're dead. It might be possible to be a retired cop and not chase some jogger down in your pick up truck and shoot them in the back. None of these cops is going to wind up dead because some snobby college students have said something nasty to them.
Eloquently put.
Is Onlylivingboy American? He seems to use a lot of American vernacular.
I've just read many of Ian Miles Cheong tweets, Lady G, and his concerns about wokeness, BLM and cancel culture are remarakably similar to yours. He, like you, also thinks the odd film about the odd nutter behaving badly symbolises the end of civilisation as we know it.
Are you by any chance related to Mr Cheong? I think we should know.
It's sweet that you think only one or two people object to this complete fucking lunacy.
Your style is different from Lady G's, as can be seen from your sentence.
I think most people object to this "lunacy", including me. Where we differ is that I think this lunacy represents the views of a very small, though vocal, minority of people.
They are no more representative of the political left than Tommy Robinson is of the right.
I agree with you. This is a tiny minority.
But this revolution is being driven, in part, by the extremists, at the moment - or so it seems to me. So the views of a small number of unbalanced people are quite important. Unfortunately
What revolution? There is none. Just some people out for trouble, and a much large number of people wanting to make the world a better place. The troublemakers won't win.
When the extremists are on the other side, nobody thinks a revolution is imminent. When the National Front went around "Paki-bashing" in the 1970s and early 80s, and subsequently the BNP, EDL and now the hilariously-named Democratic Lads Football Alliance displayed their racism and hate, was that a sign of an imminent revolution or the end of civilisation? No, it's only the left-wing loonies that could bring the whole lot tumbling down, of course.
It's all nonsense, there won't be radical change, but hopefully black Americans might get a better deal than they get now and the culture of the USA police will improve. And of course, Trump will go.
Actually, you're right. Revolution is the wrong word.
Rupture is a better word.
My concern isn't for statues, anyway, my concern is the closing down of Free Speech, something Americans have protected admirably for centuries. I fear the Rupture, in its earnest and understandable zeal for justice, might irretrievably damage the cause of Free Speech.
By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.
It is appalling.
I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.
I'm not woke, I just believe in treating everyone as an individual.
Treating someone different based upon their skin colour is stupid.
The same reason I am prepared to unequivocally say "black lives matter" is the same reason I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit.
It was a sincere compliment (and I don't give you many).
But if you want to throw it back in my face.
Not throwing anything back, just saying as I thought to be "woke" you had to believe in "cultural appropriation" nowadays.
To me those who believe in "cultural appropriation" are racists.
As always it's case by case.
You don't want the Minstrels back. I don't want the Minstrels back.
But other cases are less clear.
But some take it to extremes - a white person eating a taco is cultural appropriation.
To me, cultural appropriation is just memes doing their work. If the meme is successful, it will thrive in multiple environments and be adapted to those (the blues, rock'n'roll, rap); if it is less successful, it dies out (minstrel shows).
Of course, some 'bad' memes also survive. But the way to challenge them is with better memes, not by labeling them.
As an adopted American, how do you feel about the statue-toppling? Columbus, Lincoln, Washington, etc?
All I can hear on Twitter is a very partisan argument - insane Trumpites going even madder, who are outnumbered by the American Left cheering it all on.
Is there any middle ground opinion on all this? Or is it all polarised?
Personally, I have no problem with tearing down statues - it's happened throughout history as dynasties change or as ideas get ousted.
But I'd prefer they were taken down from public spaces and placed in museums rather than destroyed. And I do hate the concept of judging people on the mores of today, rather than of the age in which they lived.
Interesting. Thankyou
I note that Biden is wobbly on statue toppling. One minute he says George Washington must stay, the next that he can go. Perhaps he reflects Middle America's ambivalence
I hope you are right. Not just awful people, I think there is some kind of mental issue. A divorce from logic and reason.
The apocryphal Bullingdon man burning a £50 note in front of a tramp would display less naked class prejudice than that twat in the grass skirt.
It turns out that the sleep of reason produces not monsters, but Dunning-Kruger specimen cases.
The member of the Cambridge Student Conservative Association that burned a £20 note in front of a homeless man wasn't apocryphal. I daresay the homeless being decanted back onto the streets is already giving these lads a bit of a tingle.
I dunno they've had racist cops for two hundred years and it's taken them that long to tire of them, apparently.
And yet despite that anger might it not be possible to protest police without mocking their education and calling people a judas?
It might. It might be possible to not burst into someone's house in the middle of the night and gun them down in their bed. It might be possible to not kneel on someone's neck until they're dead. It might be possible to be a retired cop and not chase some jogger down in your pick up truck and shoot them in the back. None of these cops is going to wind up dead because some snobby college students have said something nasty to them.
Eloquently put.
Is Onlylivingboy American? He seems to use a lot of American vernacular.
I think he may have said he lived there for several years once. But I may be mixing him up with somebody else.
I dunno they've had racist cops for two hundred years and it's taken them that long to tire of them, apparently.
And yet despite that anger might it not be possible to protest police without mocking their education and calling people a judas?
It might. It might be possible to not burst into someone's house in the middle of the night and gun them down in their bed. It might be possible to not kneel on someone's neck until they're dead. It might be possible to be a retired cop and not chase some jogger down in your pick up truck and shoot them in the back. None of these cops is going to wind up dead because some snobby college students have said something nasty to them.
Eloquently put.
Is Onlylivingboy American? He seems to use a lot of American vernacular.
Americans are people too.
They just owe us our continent back.
(Joke, obviously, on the first point )
After what they've done to it, they won't be getting their deposit back.
I hope you are right. Not just awful people, I think there is some kind of mental issue. A divorce from logic and reason.
The apocryphal Bullingdon man burning a £50 note in front of a tramp would display less naked class prejudice than that twat in the grass skirt.
It turns out that the sleep of reason produces not monsters, but Dunning-Kruger specimen cases.
The member of the Cambridge Student Conservative Association that burned a £20 note in front of a homeless man wasn't apocryphal. I daresay the homeless being decanted back onto the streets is already giving these lads a bit of a tingle.
By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.
It is appalling.
I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.
I'm not woke, I just believe in treating everyone as an individual.
Treating someone different based upon their skin colour is stupid.
The same reason I am prepared to unequivocally say "black lives matter" is the same reason I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit.
It was a sincere compliment (and I don't give you many).
But if you want to throw it back in my face.
Not throwing anything back, just saying as I thought to be "woke" you had to believe in "cultural appropriation" nowadays.
To me those who believe in "cultural appropriation" are racists.
As always it's case by case.
You don't want the Minstrels back. I don't want the Minstrels back.
But other cases are less clear.
But some take it to extremes - a white person eating a taco is cultural appropriation.
To me, cultural appropriation is just memes doing their work. If the meme is successful, it will thrive in multiple environments and be adapted to those (the blues, rock'n'roll, rap); if it is less successful, it dies out (minstrel shows).
Of course, some 'bad' memes also survive. But the way to challenge them is with better memes, not by labeling them.
As an adopted American, how do you feel about the statue-toppling? Columbus, Lincoln, Washington, etc?
All I can hear on Twitter is a very partisan argument - insane Trumpites going even madder, who are outnumbered by the American Left cheering it all on.
Is there any middle ground opinion on all this? Or is it all polarised?
Personally, I have no problem with tearing down statues - it's happened throughout history as dynasties change or as ideas get ousted.
But I'd prefer they were taken down from public spaces and placed in museums rather than destroyed. And I do hate the concept of judging people on the mores of today, rather than of the age in which they lived.
Interesting. Thankyou
I note that Biden is wobbly on statue toppling. One minute he says George Washington must stay, the next that he can go. Perhaps he reflects Middle America's ambivalence
Can you point me to where he wants Washington to go ?
I hope you are right. Not just awful people, I think there is some kind of mental issue. A divorce from logic and reason.
The apocryphal Bullingdon man burning a £50 note in front of a tramp would display less naked class prejudice than that twat in the grass skirt.
It turns out that the sleep of reason produces not monsters, but Dunning-Kruger specimen cases.
The member of the Cambridge Student Conservative Association that burned a £20 note in front of a homeless man wasn't apocryphal. I daresay the homeless being decanted back onto the streets is already giving these lads a bit of a tingle.
The Buller is Oxford, not Cambridge. There's no accounting for the perversities of the Fens-dwellers.
But grass-skirt man would still be worse than the Tabs.
By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.
It is appalling.
I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.
I'm not woke, I just believe in treating everyone as an individual.
Treating someone different based upon their skin colour is stupid.
The same reason I am prepared to unequivocally say "black lives matter" is the same reason I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit.
It was a sincere compliment (and I don't give you many).
But if you want to throw it back in my face.
Not throwing anything back, just saying as I thought to be "woke" you had to believe in "cultural appropriation" nowadays.
To me those who believe in "cultural appropriation" are racists.
As always it's case by case.
You don't want the Minstrels back. I don't want the Minstrels back.
But other cases are less clear.
But some take it to extremes - a white person eating a taco is cultural appropriation.
To me, cultural appropriation is just memes doing their work. If the meme is successful, it will thrive in multiple environments and be adapted to those (the blues, rock'n'roll, rap); if it is less successful, it dies out (minstrel shows).
Of course, some 'bad' memes also survive. But the way to challenge them is with better memes, not by labeling them.
For me there's no such thing as "cultural appropriation". I think its a load of bollocks.
Blackface is racism, as simple as that. Minstrels were never part of black culture that were appropriated it was simply racist blackface.
A white person doing something from another race's culture is simply a part of multiculturalism.
One thing Ive never understood about cultural appropriation is what people whose parents come from different cultures are supposed to do/allowed to do?
And how university students manage to complain about it. A university is a machine for cultural appropriation. Without it Oxford would teach nothing but druidic astronomy, and herb lore.
Uncouth Caledonian that I am, I'd got the impression from the Oxbridge snobs on here that that was about their limit.
By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.
It is appalling.
I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.
I'm not woke, I just believe in treating everyone as an individual.
Treating someone different based upon their skin colour is stupid.
The same reason I am prepared to unequivocally say "black lives matter" is the same reason I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit.
It was a sincere compliment (and I don't give you many).
But if you want to throw it back in my face.
Not throwing anything back, just saying as I thought to be "woke" you had to believe in "cultural appropriation" nowadays.
To me those who believe in "cultural appropriation" are racists.
As always it's case by case.
You don't want the Minstrels back. I don't want the Minstrels back.
But other cases are less clear.
But some take it to extremes - a white person eating a taco is cultural appropriation.
To me, cultural appropriation is just memes doing their work. If the meme is successful, it will thrive in multiple environments and be adapted to those (the blues, rock'n'roll, rap); if it is less successful, it dies out (minstrel shows).
Of course, some 'bad' memes also survive. But the way to challenge them is with better memes, not by labeling them.
As an adopted American, how do you feel about the statue-toppling? Columbus, Lincoln, Washington, etc?
All I can hear on Twitter is a very partisan argument - insane Trumpites going even madder, who are outnumbered by the American Left cheering it all on.
Is there any middle ground opinion on all this? Or is it all polarised?
Personally, I have no problem with tearing down statues - it's happened throughout history as dynasties change or as ideas get ousted.
But I'd prefer they were taken down from public spaces and placed in museums rather than destroyed. And I do hate the concept of judging people on the mores of today, rather than of the age in which they lived.
Interesting. Thankyou
I note that Biden is wobbly on statue toppling. One minute he says George Washington must stay, the next that he can go. Perhaps he reflects Middle America's ambivalence
As in Britain- the view of the man not currently taking the Clapham Omnibus is probably "The lefties will want to take it too far, but when it comes to some of these statues, they've got a fair point. It's a shame we can't all be nicer to one another."
If the Bidens and Starmers of this world are articulating those wobbly thoughts, then frankly well done them. Especially when there are culture warriors on the left and the right sneering at them for wobbly centrism. I hope that a flag can be planted stably in the ground around this, but I'm not sure I'm confident.
I hope you are right. Not just awful people, I think there is some kind of mental issue. A divorce from logic and reason.
The apocryphal Bullingdon man burning a £50 note in front of a tramp would display less naked class prejudice than that twat in the grass skirt.
It turns out that the sleep of reason produces not monsters, but Dunning-Kruger specimen cases.
The member of the Cambridge Student Conservative Association that burned a £20 note in front of a homeless man wasn't apocryphal. I daresay the homeless being decanted back onto the streets is already giving these lads a bit of a tingle.
I guess he'll pay his tax.
The loutish violence of the left isn't apocryphal. You should probably stop arsing about.
By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.
It is appalling.
I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.
I'm not woke, I just believe in treating everyone as an individual.
Treating someone different based upon their skin colour is stupid.
The same reason I am prepared to unequivocally say "black lives matter" is the same reason I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit.
It was a sincere compliment (and I don't give you many).
But if you want to throw it back in my face.
Not throwing anything back, just saying as I thought to be "woke" you had to believe in "cultural appropriation" nowadays.
To me those who believe in "cultural appropriation" are racists.
As always it's case by case.
You don't want the Minstrels back. I don't want the Minstrels back.
But other cases are less clear.
But some take it to extremes - a white person eating a taco is cultural appropriation.
To me, cultural appropriation is just memes doing their work. If the meme is successful, it will thrive in multiple environments and be adapted to those (the blues, rock'n'roll, rap); if it is less successful, it dies out (minstrel shows).
Of course, some 'bad' memes also survive. But the way to challenge them is with better memes, not by labeling them.
As an adopted American, how do you feel about the statue-toppling? Columbus, Lincoln, Washington, etc?
All I can hear on Twitter is a very partisan argument - insane Trumpites going even madder, who are outnumbered by the American Left cheering it all on.
Is there any middle ground opinion on all this? Or is it all polarised?
Personally, I have no problem with tearing down statues - it's happened throughout history as dynasties change or as ideas get ousted.
But I'd prefer they were taken down from public spaces and placed in museums rather than destroyed. And I do hate the concept of judging people on the mores of today, rather than of the age in which they lived.
Interesting. Thankyou
I note that Biden is wobbly on statue toppling. One minute he says George Washington must stay, the next that he can go. Perhaps he reflects Middle America's ambivalence
Can you point me to where he wants Washington to go ?
Is it true? It is so hard to say. This guy is a partisan Conservative, so he has a reason to diss Biden. It might be bollocks.
But that's the problem across the board, as I mention below. This kulturkampf is so bitter is is really hard to get unbiased, objective news. The New York Times has entirely abandoned the concept of neutrality, in its domestic coverage
Big guns starting to come out for referendum , will be interesting to see outcome of upcoming court case etc. Natives are definitely restless and getting more so.
An illegal referendum is madness. Sturgeon is right, Cherry is wrong.
The question is, would it be illegal? Not been tested in the courts.
Yes.
Next question therefore - why is Joanna Cherry proposing it?
Answer - would be interested to learn it.
Yes? it's not been testedf in the courts, as I said, and there have been legal opinions from constitutional law specialists which differ from the standard UK Government doctrine.
If the courts uphold the London line, then the SNP is no worse off, and the democratic deficit is left in no doubt. If they don't (and remember what Ms Cherry and her allies did in Edinburgh re prorogation), then ...
You can find a ‘constitutional expert’ who will say anything. In this case, like Cherry, confirming their own wishful thinking. Dominic Cummings is not alone in thinking the law says what he wants it to say.
The law is crystal clear that constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster and the Scottish Executive themselves conceded that over the previous referendum. The chances of that being overturned by a court that hasn’t been bribed, bullied, or blackmailed are zero.
The fact that single issue fanatics like Cherry think otherwise isn’t proof of anything.
The SNP would be far better advised standing in 2021 on a manifesto stating that if they or they and the Greens combined get a majority they will again petition for the necessary powers. Because that really would be difficult to refuse.
And that’s what Sturgeon seems to be doing.
The Scottish Government was not called the Executive in 2014 (to be a PB pedant).
The quesiton is whether Scottish constitutional law has elements in it which make the London doctrine untenable, certainly in a Scottish legal context. For instance, the doctrine of sovereignty withj the people rathe rthan with King and Parliament. I don't know the answer, and we won't know till the court case, but remember that Scots law doesn't always give the answer London wants (as with prorogation).
I'm slightly puzzled at your suggestion re 2021 as there is already a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament elected on the basis of having a referendum, with the No to Indyref Party (aka Ruth Davidson's lot) thrashed in the same election. And a majority of Westminster representation (which Mrs T thought was ample reason alone to concede independence, remember). In any case, Mr Johnson has alkready made it clear he'd refuse.
Anyway there is herring in oatmeal frying and potatoes and runner beans to go with it, so I'll say goodnight - have a nice evening all.
We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.
Now, a few points to note:
1) There is no ‘clear and sustained evidence’ that independence is the preferred option of a majority. There is limited and marginal evidence that it may be.
2) Yes, you could argue legitimately that the final subclause applies. However, Sturgeon herself, having raised it, dropped this demand after 2017, after the SNP’s unexpectedly lacklustre performance indicated a lack of enthusiasm for it.
3) But the key words are at the start - ‘should have the right.’ That’s an admission it doesn’t have that right. Otherwise, they would have said, ‘We contend the Scottish Parliament has the right...’
So I’m afraid I don’t buy that argument, and clearly Sturgeon doesn’t either from the way she is playing the longer game.
The correct approach is to say in the next manifesto, ‘We contend the 2016 election is a significant and material change in the situation of the U.K., and in light of both this and the fact the promises of the U.K. government on extra powers for Holyrood have not been honoured, the first act of a returned SNP government will be to petition the U.K. government for a further referendum on independence, with a view to challenging any refusal through the courts.’
And do you know what? I reckon (a) they would win the election and (b) Johnson would fold.
But an attempt at a wildcat referendum on the back of some of the more, shall we say, obsessive elements in the party wouldn’t end well for anybody.
If it is legal, whether it's under Scots alw or not, it is not a wildcat refertendum. And a political party manifesto is not an act of constitutional law.
But some interesting thoughts re strategies. Yet what makes you think Mr Johnson would fold? Why should he? He could block the court case, and change the law meanwhile, as his predecessor did with the Brexit legislation.
Because ultimately Johnson does what is best for Johnson. And getting rid of a recalcitrant Scotland makes it much easier boh for him to pose as a champion of democracy and to hold power at Westminster.
That’s to leave aside the fact that refusing it under such circumstances could - and should - be considered a breach of Scotland’s right to self-determination.
Thanks for that - and yet, would Mr Johnson want to pose as the worst PM since Lord North? The one who destroyed the UK?
How often do I have to remind people that Portland, Goderich, Aberdeen, Chamberlain and Brown all post-date North?
David Cameron is the worst Prime Minister since Lord North. He actively and unnecessarily made things worse, by his own lights. You could make a better case for Eden than those you name; Portland and Goderich were largely ineffectual; you might have some sort of a case with Aberdeen over the Crimean War. Gordon Brown was either the greatest or second-best Prime Minister of the current century, though that is a pretty low bar given who came since. Of course, if Boris were to jettison Scotland and Northern Ireland, he'd surpass Cameron who only nearly mislaid the Scots.
By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.
It is appalling.
I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.
I'm not woke, I just believe in treating everyone as an individual.
Treating someone different based upon their skin colour is stupid.
The same reason I am prepared to unequivocally say "black lives matter" is the same reason I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit.
It was a sincere compliment (and I don't give you many).
But if you want to throw it back in my face.
Not throwing anything back, just saying as I thought to be "woke" you had to believe in "cultural appropriation" nowadays.
To me those who believe in "cultural appropriation" are racists.
As always it's case by case.
You don't want the Minstrels back. I don't want the Minstrels back.
But other cases are less clear.
But some take it to extremes - a white person eating a taco is cultural appropriation.
To me, cultural appropriation is just memes doing their work. If the meme is successful, it will thrive in multiple environments and be adapted to those (the blues, rock'n'roll, rap); if it is less successful, it dies out (minstrel shows).
Of course, some 'bad' memes also survive. But the way to challenge them is with better memes, not by labeling them.
As an adopted American, how do you feel about the statue-toppling? Columbus, Lincoln, Washington, etc?
All I can hear on Twitter is a very partisan argument - insane Trumpites going even madder, who are outnumbered by the American Left cheering it all on.
Is there any middle ground opinion on all this? Or is it all polarised?
Personally, I have no problem with tearing down statues - it's happened throughout history as dynasties change or as ideas get ousted.
But I'd prefer they were taken down from public spaces and placed in museums rather than destroyed. And I do hate the concept of judging people on the mores of today, rather than of the age in which they lived.
Interesting. Thankyou
I note that Biden is wobbly on statue toppling. One minute he says George Washington must stay, the next that he can go. Perhaps he reflects Middle America's ambivalence
Can you point me to where he wants Washington to go ?
I dunno they've had racist cops for two hundred years and it's taken them that long to tire of them, apparently.
And yet despite that anger might it not be possible to protest police without mocking their education and calling people a judas?
It might. It might be possible to not burst into someone's house in the middle of the night and gun them down in their bed. It might be possible to not kneel on someone's neck until they're dead. It might be possible to be a retired cop and not chase some jogger down in your pick up truck and shoot them in the back. None of these cops is going to wind up dead because some snobby college students have said something nasty to them.
Eloquently put.
Is Onlylivingboy American? He seems to use a lot of American vernacular.
I am not American but I do have two American anchor babies from living there for five years (they were ineffective anchors since we moved back to the UK). I thought you guys all loved the Anglosphere anyway? At least I wasn't speaking French, right!
I hope you are right. Not just awful people, I think there is some kind of mental issue. A divorce from logic and reason.
The apocryphal Bullingdon man burning a £50 note in front of a tramp would display less naked class prejudice than that twat in the grass skirt.
It turns out that the sleep of reason produces not monsters, but Dunning-Kruger specimen cases.
The member of the Cambridge Student Conservative Association that burned a £20 note in front of a homeless man wasn't apocryphal. I daresay the homeless being decanted back onto the streets is already giving these lads a bit of a tingle.
I guess he'll pay his tax.
The loutish violence of the left isn't apocryphal. You should probably stop arsing about.
Get back to me when your promotion from reactionary rando to PB arsing about moderator comes through.
It was carved in the Stalin era, and looks like something he would have done.
Stone Mountain GA is a bigger rock carving. Jefferson Davis (Confederate President) and Generals Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson. It was finished in 1972. That is well within my lifetime. A lot of these monuments went up within living memory.
I dunno they've had racist cops for two hundred years and it's taken them that long to tire of them, apparently.
And yet despite that anger might it not be possible to protest police without mocking their education and calling people a judas?
It might. It might be possible to not burst into someone's house in the middle of the night and gun them down in their bed. It might be possible to not kneel on someone's neck until they're dead. It might be possible to be a retired cop and not chase some jogger down in your pick up truck and shoot them in the back. None of these cops is going to wind up dead because some snobby college students have said something nasty to them.
Eloquently put.
Is Onlylivingboy American? He seems to use a lot of American vernacular.
I am not American but I do have two American anchor babies from living there for five years (they were ineffective anchors since we moved back to the UK). I thought you guys all loved the Anglosphere anyway? At least I wasn't speaking French, right!
I've just read many of Ian Miles Cheong tweets, Lady G, and his concerns about wokeness, BLM and cancel culture are remarakably similar to yours. He, like you, also thinks the odd film about the odd nutter behaving badly symbolises the end of civilisation as we know it.
Are you by any chance related to Mr Cheong? I think we should know.
It's sweet that you think only one or two people object to this complete fucking lunacy.
Your style is different from Lady G's, as can be seen from your sentence.
I think most people object to this "lunacy", including me. Where we differ is that I think this lunacy represents the views of a very small, though vocal, minority of people.
They are no more representative of the political left than Tommy Robinson is of the right.
I agree with you. This is a tiny minority.
But this revolution is being driven, in part, by the extremists, at the moment - or so it seems to me. So the views of a small number of unbalanced people are quite important. Unfortunately
What revolution? There is none. Just some people out for trouble, and a much large number of people wanting to make the world a better place. The troublemakers won't win.
When the extremists are on the other side, nobody thinks a revolution is imminent. When the National Front went around "Paki-bashing" in the 1970s and early 80s, and subsequently the BNP, EDL and now the hilariously-named Democratic Lads Football Alliance displayed their racism and hate, was that a sign of an imminent revolution or the end of civilisation? No, it's only the left-wing loonies that could bring the whole lot tumbling down, of course.
It's all nonsense, there won't be radical change, but hopefully black Americans might get a better deal than they get now and the culture of the USA police will improve. And of course, Trump will go.
Actually, you're right. Revolution is the wrong word.
Rupture is a better word.
My concern isn't for statues, anyway, my concern is the closing down of Free Speech, something Americans have protected admirably for centuries. I fear the Rupture, in its earnest and understandable zeal for justice, might irretrievably damage the cause of Free Speech.
We shall see.
Did Senator Joe McCarthy in the 1950s not close down free speech then?
It was carved in the Stalin era, and looks like something he would have done.
Stone Mountain GA is a bigger rock carving. Jefferson Davis (Confederate President) and Generals Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson. It was finished in 1972. That is well within my lifetime. A lot of these monuments went up within living memory.
Always felt a bit hubristic and naff to me - like someone carving graffiti into a tree.
By the political tenor of tweets people are triggered by shall ye know them.
It is appalling.
I've been called "woke" by your fellow Scottish Nat Malcolmg recently for backing BLM (as an idea), defending "Sir Kneel" etc but that is frankly appalling.
I'm not woke, I just believe in treating everyone as an individual.
Treating someone different based upon their skin colour is stupid.
The same reason I am prepared to unequivocally say "black lives matter" is the same reason I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit.
It was a sincere compliment (and I don't give you many).
But if you want to throw it back in my face.
Not throwing anything back, just saying as I thought to be "woke" you had to believe in "cultural appropriation" nowadays.
To me those who believe in "cultural appropriation" are racists.
As always it's case by case.
You don't want the Minstrels back. I don't want the Minstrels back.
But other cases are less clear.
But some take it to extremes - a white person eating a taco is cultural appropriation.
To me, cultural appropriation is just memes doing their work. If the meme is successful, it will thrive in multiple environments and be adapted to those (the blues, rock'n'roll, rap); if it is less successful, it dies out (minstrel shows).
Of course, some 'bad' memes also survive. But the way to challenge them is with better memes, not by labeling them.
As an adopted American, how do you feel about the statue-toppling? Columbus, Lincoln, Washington, etc?
All I can hear on Twitter is a very partisan argument - insane Trumpites going even madder, who are outnumbered by the American Left cheering it all on.
Is there any middle ground opinion on all this? Or is it all polarised?
Personally, I have no problem with tearing down statues - it's happened throughout history as dynasties change or as ideas get ousted.
But I'd prefer they were taken down from public spaces and placed in museums rather than destroyed. And I do hate the concept of judging people on the mores of today, rather than of the age in which they lived.
Interesting. Thankyou
I note that Biden is wobbly on statue toppling. One minute he says George Washington must stay, the next that he can go. Perhaps he reflects Middle America's ambivalence
Can you point me to where he wants Washington to go ?
Is it true? It is so hard to say. This guy is a partisan Conservative, so he has a reason to diss Biden. It might be bollocks.
But that's the problem across the board, as I mention below. This kulturkampf is so bitter is is really hard to get unbiased, objective news. The New York Times has entirely abandoned the concept of neutrality, in its domestic coverage
Pretty sure Biden would vote to get rid of the Taney bust. As would any sane individual.
I hope you are right. Not just awful people, I think there is some kind of mental issue. A divorce from logic and reason.
The apocryphal Bullingdon man burning a £50 note in front of a tramp would display less naked class prejudice than that twat in the grass skirt.
It turns out that the sleep of reason produces not monsters, but Dunning-Kruger specimen cases.
The member of the Cambridge Student Conservative Association that burned a £20 note in front of a homeless man wasn't apocryphal. I daresay the homeless being decanted back onto the streets is already giving these lads a bit of a tingle.
I guess he'll pay his tax.
The loutish violence of the left isn't apocryphal. You should probably stop arsing about.
Get back to me when your promotion from reactionary rando to PB arsing about moderator comes through.
I'll be sure to do that. Your views are very important to me.
They seem important to you too, although it's hard to tell.
It was carved in the Stalin era, and looks like something he would have done.
Stone Mountain GA is a bigger rock carving. Jefferson Davis (Confederate President) and Generals Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson. It was finished in 1972. That is well within my lifetime. A lot of these monuments went up within living memory.
Always felt a bit hubristic and naff to me - like someone carving graffiti into a tree.
A bit hard to get rid of, short of the Taliban artillery approach.
It was carved in the Stalin era, and looks like something he would have done.
Stone Mountain GA is a bigger rock carving. Jefferson Davis (Confederate President) and Generals Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson. It was finished in 1972. That is well within my lifetime. A lot of these monuments went up within living memory.
It's got a real Treptower war memorial bas relief vibe to it, though on an even bigger scale presumably.
Frustrating for me, I want to see the spanners get relegated.
Jarrod Bowen is the player Leicester needed in Jan. We have been in poor form since before Christmas. Just hanging on to 3rd place because of others poor form!
900 + posts on the Lib Dem leadership race thread.
Never let it be said that PB focuses on the big picture!
But I though you claimed yourself to be a Liberal, Charles ?
Why the disdain ?
I’m a Liberal Unionist not a LibDem.
But even if I was a LibDem I’d still admit that there a few things at the moment of greater geopolitical significance than the next leader of the 4th largest party on the U.K.
900 + posts on the Lib Dem leadership race thread.
Never let it be said that PB focuses on the big picture!
But I though you claimed yourself to be a Liberal, Charles ?
Why the disdain ?
I’m a Liberal Unionist not a LibDem.
But even if I was a LibDem I’d still admit that there a few things at the moment of greater geopolitical significance than the next leader of the 4th largest party on the U.K.
It was carved in the Stalin era, and looks like something he would have done.
Stone Mountain GA is a bigger rock carving. Jefferson Davis (Confederate President) and Generals Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson. It was finished in 1972. That is well within my lifetime. A lot of these monuments went up within living memory.
It's got a real Treptower war memorial bas relief vibe to it, though on an even bigger scale presumably.
I can lend you the money for long trousers. Bygones are bygones.
I hope you are right. Not just awful people, I think there is some kind of mental issue. A divorce from logic and reason.
The apocryphal Bullingdon man burning a £50 note in front of a tramp would display less naked class prejudice than that twat in the grass skirt.
It turns out that the sleep of reason produces not monsters, but Dunning-Kruger specimen cases.
The member of the Cambridge Student Conservative Association that burned a £20 note in front of a homeless man wasn't apocryphal. I daresay the homeless being decanted back onto the streets is already giving these lads a bit of a tingle.
The blast of ultraviolet light turned out to be a genuine medical treatment too.
Really? Was there any doubt?
Photodynamic therapy is well known for head and neck cancer, melanoma and carcinoma as well as acne and rosacea
I think the ultraviolet light and the injectable disinfectant were both seized upon as Trump craziness, but actually it was an interesting (if highly mistimed and inappropriate) medical musing.
It was carved in the Stalin era, and looks like something he would have done.
Stone Mountain GA is a bigger rock carving. Jefferson Davis (Confederate President) and Generals Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson. It was finished in 1972. That is well within my lifetime. A lot of these monuments went up within living memory.
Always felt a bit hubristic and naff to me - like someone carving graffiti into a tree.
Wasn’t it a direct response to Brown vs Board of Education?
That’s one monument that really ought to be pulled down
I hope you are right. Not just awful people, I think there is some kind of mental issue. A divorce from logic and reason.
The apocryphal Bullingdon man burning a £50 note in front of a tramp would display less naked class prejudice than that twat in the grass skirt.
It turns out that the sleep of reason produces not monsters, but Dunning-Kruger specimen cases.
The member of the Cambridge Student Conservative Association that burned a £20 note in front of a homeless man wasn't apocryphal. I daresay the homeless being decanted back onto the streets is already giving these lads a bit of a tingle.
He at least felt regret. It might have been because he was caught mind you.
I've heard of a football player who used to start fights in night clubs by , pre smoking ban, lighting a cigar with a £20 note.
I have it on impeccable authority that chaps from a high-ranking public school used to sit burning £20 notes amongst themselves, just to prove to each other that they could.
1.5 Backward contact tracing A current study on the utility of backward contact tracing is being piloted across England. Leicester city residents have been included in the pilot. Against an intended sample of 50 cases, only 11 cases in the city had successfully completed the study until 24 June 2020. Preliminary analysis of the 11 cases did not identify any events with multiple households attending. Most of the cases did not report leaving home, other than for visiting supermarkets.
I hope you are right. Not just awful people, I think there is some kind of mental issue. A divorce from logic and reason.
The apocryphal Bullingdon man burning a £50 note in front of a tramp would display less naked class prejudice than that twat in the grass skirt.
It turns out that the sleep of reason produces not monsters, but Dunning-Kruger specimen cases.
The member of the Cambridge Student Conservative Association that burned a £20 note in front of a homeless man wasn't apocryphal. I daresay the homeless being decanted back onto the streets is already giving these lads a bit of a tingle.
He at least felt regret. It might have been because he was caught mind you.
I've heard of a football player who used to start fights in night clubs by , pre smoking ban, lighting a cigar with a £20 note.
I have it on impeccable authority that chaps from a high-ranking public school used to sit burning £20 notes amongst themselves, just to prove to each other that they could.
And thus it defines the world?
Burning notes is in fact a socially good thing - they have less, everyone else has more (slightly - and I know it's about perceived money).
If you're going to start worrying about the antics of football players and students then you're always going to have a degree of disappointment.
I think Biden and the Democrats are making a strategic error being too pro on the statues. They think the repulsiveness of Trump gives them more freedom to be a little more themselves. And clearly when he is (inevitably) swept from office, it's going to be payback time for Trumpism and Trumpers. That perspective is entirely understandable, but what they should be doing is locking in victory by at least putting on a show of building a broad coalition. Starmer understands this in the UK.
1.5 Backward contact tracing A current study on the utility of backward contact tracing is being piloted across England. Leicester city residents have been included in the pilot. Against an intended sample of 50 cases, only 11 cases in the city had successfully completed the study until 24 June 2020. Preliminary analysis of the 11 cases did not identify any events with multiple households attending. Most of the cases did not report leaving home, other than for visiting supermarkets.
Going back to Uber, I reckon they're going bust within 12 months.
They had 9bn in "Unrestricted cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments" at end March. They're losing something like 3bn a quarter.
Coronavirus isn't going away any time soon in their main US market or their second largest market, Brazil.
Could all be over by end of the year.
They're not going to go bust because someone will be prepared to invest in them, even if not at current prices.
Ultimately, at some point CV-19 will be over, either because a hundred million people have died and the rest of us have some form of immunity, or because a vaccine is created.
There will then again be a need for an efficient way of matching drivers with riders. Uber is an efficient way of matching drivers with riders. It also has a massive market share in places like London, Los Angeles, etc.
So, I would not bet on Uber going bust.
Fancy betting with me? £50 to charity says they are bust by 31st Dec 2021. I say the uber app is not hard to develop, there are limited barriers to entry and once they stop subsidising taxi services they are toast.
Comments
lol. No. Cheong is quite a well known activist/journalist
Never let it be said that PB focuses on the big picture!
To me, cultural appropriation is just memes doing their work. If the meme is successful, it will thrive in multiple environments and be adapted to those (the blues, rock'n'roll, rap); if it is less successful, it dies out (minstrel shows).
Of course, some 'bad' memes also survive. But the way to challenge them is with better memes, not by labeling them.
"Columbus, Ohio, takes down statue of Christopher Columbus"
https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1278320506446450694?s=20
Blackface is racism, as simple as that. Minstrels were never part of black culture that were appropriated it was simply racist blackface.
A white person doing something from another race's culture is simply a part of multiculturalism.
All I can hear on Twitter is a very partisan argument - insane Trumpites going even madder, who are outnumbered by the American Left cheering it all on.
Is there any middle ground opinion on all this? Or is it all polarised?
But imagine the VP debate.
https://twitter.com/jennamargaretta/status/1278318739293962240
I think I might see where you're going wrong . . .
I am trying to educate myself as to what is happening in America, as it is quite radical. And interesting.
It's their country and they can do what they like, they can tear down every statue in every state if they wish, I just want to find out why, and who approves, or doesn't. Very difficult to tell this through the fog of the culture war.
It turns out that the sleep of reason produces not monsters, but Dunning-Kruger specimen cases.
For example, I’m astonished that effing Taney is still hanging around....
House to vote on removing bust of Supreme Court justice who wrote Dred Scott ruling
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/505473-house-to-vote-on-removing-bust-of-supreme-court-justice-who-wrote-dred-scott
I think most people object to this "lunacy", including me. Where we differ is that I think this lunacy represents the views of a very small, though vocal, minority of people.
They are no more representative of the political left than Tommy Robinson is of the right.
But this revolution is being driven, in part, by the extremists, at the moment - or so it seems to me. So the views of a small number of unbalanced people are quite important. Unfortunately
Why the disdain ?
Mount Rushmore....
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1278387954440904704?s=20
But there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents...
https://twitter.com/macalavip/status/1275578013120434176?s=21
When the extremists are on the other side, nobody thinks a revolution is imminent. When the National Front went around "Paki-bashing" in the 1970s and early 80s, and subsequently the BNP, EDL and now the hilariously-named Democratic Lads Football Alliance displayed their racism and hate, was that a sign of an imminent revolution or the end of civilisation? No, it's only the left-wing loonies that could bring the whole lot tumbling down, of course.
It's all nonsense, there won't be radical change, but hopefully black Americans might get a better deal than they get now and the culture of the USA police will improve. And of course, Trump will go.
Personally, I have no problem with tearing down statues - it's happened throughout history as dynasties change or as ideas get ousted.
But I'd prefer they were taken down from public spaces and placed in museums rather than destroyed. And I do hate the concept of judging people on the mores of today, rather than of the age in which they lived.
They just owe us our continent back.
(Joke, obviously, on the first point
Rupture is a better word.
My concern isn't for statues, anyway, my concern is the closing down of Free Speech, something Americans have protected admirably for centuries. I fear the Rupture, in its earnest and understandable zeal for justice, might irretrievably damage the cause of Free Speech.
We shall see.
I note that Biden is wobbly on statue toppling. One minute he says George Washington must stay, the next that he can go. Perhaps he reflects Middle America's ambivalence
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cambridge-university-student-burn-20-note-homeless-man-abuse-privilege-ronald-coyne-a7924806.html
He at least felt regret. It might have been because he was caught mind you.
https://news.sky.com/video/bidens-distinction-on-slave-ownership-of-george-washington-and-confederacy-12018693 seems a sensible position.
But grass-skirt man would still be worse than the Tabs.
If the Bidens and Starmers of this world are articulating those wobbly thoughts, then frankly well done them. Especially when there are culture warriors on the left and the right sneering at them for wobbly centrism. I hope that a flag can be planted stably in the ground around this, but I'm not sure I'm confident.
The loutish violence of the left isn't apocryphal. You should probably stop arsing about.
https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1278399239920418816
https://twitter.com/dbongino/status/1278404317159010306?s=20
Is it true? It is so hard to say. This guy is a partisan Conservative, so he has a reason to diss Biden. It might be bollocks.
But that's the problem across the board, as I mention below. This kulturkampf is so bitter is is really hard to get unbiased, objective news. The New York Times has entirely abandoned the concept of neutrality, in its domestic coverage
I thought you guys all loved the Anglosphere anyway? At least I wasn't speaking French, right!
As would any sane individual.
They seem important to you too, although it's hard to tell.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1278408442601000960?s=09
More like a choice between cancer and rhinitis.
Photodynamic therapy is well known for head and neck cancer, melanoma and carcinoma as well as acne and rosacea
But even if I was a LibDem I’d still admit that there a few things at the moment of greater geopolitical significance than the next leader of the 4th largest party on the U.K.
That’s one monument that really ought to be pulled down
I'm going for Davey. Make that 11!
https://twitter.com/CovidLeics/status/1278427596557074436?s=19
I thought this interesting:
1.5 Backward contact tracing
A current study on the utility of backward contact tracing is being piloted across England. Leicester city residents have been included in the pilot. Against an intended sample of 50 cases, only 11 cases in the city had successfully completed the study until 24 June 2020. Preliminary analysis of the 11 cases did not identify any events with multiple households attending. Most of the cases did not report leaving home, other than for visiting supermarkets.
Burning notes is in fact a socially good thing - they have less, everyone else has more (slightly - and I know it's about perceived money).
If you're going to start worrying about the antics of football players and students then you're always going to have a degree of disappointment.
NEW THREAD
I say the uber app is not hard to develop, there are limited barriers to entry and once they stop subsidising taxi services they are toast.