I read that the White House are accelerating efforts to try and sink things like the Affordable Care Act in their final weeks. The Biden transition should make it absolutely clear that in the event of the WH passing any deliberately destructive acts that the Biden White House will reverse them.
I read that the White House are accelerating efforts to try and sink things like the Affordable Care Act in their final weeks. The Biden transition should make it absolutely clear that in the event of the WH passing any deliberately destructive acts that the Biden White House will reverse them.
There's an article in the Graun which says it might not be practicable - worth a look if you are interested.
The current outsider in USPE 2020 has been backed in from over 30 a few days ago to 11. What's going on? How much further can he come in before Betfair pay out on his opponent?
Hello Hubert,
It's because (and not for the 1st time) lots of people are getting sucked into Donald Trump's bullshit and not thinking straight.
In particular atm they are taking Republican noises of support for him as evidence that he has a ghost of a chance of overturning the election result. He doesn't. The courts - not even the hack that is Brett Kavanaugh - will not do such a thing without overwhelming evidence and there is NO evidence. Neither will states won by Biden instruct their EC electors to vote for Trump. That ends US democracy and kicks off civil war. It is - literally - unthinkable unless you've lost your perspective.
But this is why Trump is into 11 on Betfair. Take a deep breath and a step back and it's clear that he should be 1000.
If I run into an impecunious widow this afternoon - and I might - I will have no hesitation in advising her to withdraw her life savings (the money saved up over many years for a decent funeral with a bit left over for the grandkids) from the Halifax and stick it all on Biden at the currently available 1.09.
In addition, Betfair rules suggest that in the unlikely event of the SC doing Trump's bidding they may well pay out on the ECV resullts as confirmed by each of the States. An alternative would perhaps be to void the market but I think they'd run with the official results as returned.
If the SC does somehow find for Trump, how would it actually work out? Would they award the ECV to the GoP? Would they void the elections and insist on a rerun, either nationally or in the contested States? What happens to the Presidency meanwhile?
It would be mayhem if not widespread civil unrest. Inconceivable.
It is. And a great betting opportunity if you have any appetite left after the frenzy of the main event - which your screen name tells me you probably do!
I write a brilliant article. And you argue about bloody burqas! And Trump. Again. And his bloody awful lawyers who give wonderful people like me a bad name.
Humph!
Anyway Olivia Coleman is utterly miscast as HMQ. She should have played Mrs Thatcher instead.
If Boris only gets a call after Biden has phoned Trudeau, Martin, Netanyahu, Merkel, Macron, Von Der Leyen, Suga, Modi and Xi and likely a few other leaders into the bargain too it will clearly be seen and probably be intended to be seen as a clear Biden snub to Boris
I read that the White House are accelerating efforts to try and sink things like the Affordable Care Act in their final weeks. The Biden transition should make it absolutely clear that in the event of the WH passing any deliberately destructive acts that the Biden White House will reverse them.
Why - it's surely obvious to even Trump that anything touching health care would be instantly reversed.
If Boris only gets a call after Biden has phoned Trudeau, Martin, Netanyahu, Merkel, Macron, Von Der Leyen, Suga, Modi and Xi and probably a few other leaders into the bargain too it will clearly be seen and probably be intended to be seen as a clear Biden snub to Boris
And then when it comes to getting ROW to do something he'll be first on the phone to the Brits asking if we would like to donate some body bags to his latest venture.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
He called the president of Turkey a goat-fucker. Now Erdogan is an arsehole, but imagine Corbyn had called Netanyahu a goat-fucker.
Yes he did. In an award winning poem lauded by the Guardian as a principled defence of free speech after Erdogan cracked down on free speech and the German's helped facilitate it.
You have an issue with that? Or again are you infamiliar with the concept of context and drawing these from a list someone else wrote.
Next time you bullshit us with something can you please be so kind as to provide the context yourself? Because all this bullshit is transparently out of context.
So he should get a career as a shit poet, then. He's currently pretending to be a shit prime minister unfortunately.
The "It was in a poetry competition" defence.
It's pathetic.
You sound just like the defenders of anti-semites in the Labour Party.
You haven't posted a single bit of evidence of Islamophobia.
So far your "evidence" if you actually read what he wrote for yourself is:
1: He (with Bianca) condemned the west letting Muslims be massacred in Srebenica. 2: He said that the burqa ban being adopted in France, Germany, Denmark, Belgium and more should not be adopted in the UK. 3: He defended free speech after a comedian was arrested in Germany for insulting an increasingly dictatorial Head of State.
That is your lot? It is pathetic.
While as most by now have gathered I think Boris is a complete twat so hate to defend him I do wonder why Kamski is here lecturing us on how islamaphobic he is in stead of on a german forum lambasting his own government for their burqa ban
Sure I think Germany is generally more racist than the UK. But less xenophobic (can't have people abroad "lecturing us" can we?). And definitely less jingoistic.
Should I be "ranting" about the German government on this forum? Doesn't really make sense.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
He called the president of Turkey a goat-fucker. Now Erdogan is an arsehole, but imagine Corbyn had called Netanyahu a goat-fucker.
Yes he did. In an award winning poem lauded by the Guardian as a principled defence of free speech after Erdogan cracked down on free speech and the German's helped facilitate it.
You have an issue with that? Or again are you infamiliar with the concept of context and drawing these from a list someone else wrote.
Next time you bullshit us with something can you please be so kind as to provide the context yourself? Because all this bullshit is transparently out of context.
An "award winning poem" ...
Yes literally. Read the Guardian article.
Yes but c'mon. Philip.
We're not hailing him as a major poet now, are we, as well as a prime piece of beefcake?
I write a brilliant article. And you argue about bloody burqas! And Trump. Again. And his bloody awful lawyers who give wonderful people like me a bad name.
Humph!
Anyway Olivia Coleman is utterly miscast as HMQ. She should have played Mrs Thatcher instead.
** goes off to sulk **
sorry. I wish I hadn't started it - if it was me, I can't remember. In a bad mood today for various reasons.
If Boris only gets a call after Biden has phoned Trudeau, Martin, Netanyahu, Merkel, Macron, Von Der Leyen, Suga, Modi and Xi and likely a few other leaders into the bargain too it will clearly be seen and probably be intended to be seen as a clear Biden snub to Boris
If it was just a personal thing with Boris I wouldn't be too concerned. More worrying would be if it reflected a diminution of Britain's importance, as Sir John was pointing out.
If Boris only gets a call after Biden has phoned Trudeau, Martin, Netanyahu, Merkel, Macron, Von Der Leyen, Suga, Modi and Xi and likely a few other leaders into the bargain too it will clearly be seen and probably be intended to be seen as a clear Biden snub to Boris
If it was just a personal thing with Boris I wouldn't be too concerned. More worrying would be if it reflected a diminution of Britain's importance, as Sir John was pointing out.
Mr Raab wasn't in too much of a rush, was he, either?
If Boris only gets a call after Biden has phoned Trudeau, Martin, Netanyahu, Merkel, Macron, Von Der Leyen, Suga, Modi and Xi and likely a few other leaders into the bargain too it will clearly be seen and probably be intended to be seen as a clear Biden snub to Boris
Well, I've just had a quick phone chat with Joe - he's all fine. Boris is clearly miles down the list.
If Boris only gets a call after Biden has phoned Trudeau, Martin, Netanyahu, Merkel, Macron, Von Der Leyen, Suga, Modi and Xi and likely a few other leaders into the bargain too it will clearly be seen and probably be intended to be seen as a clear Biden snub to Boris
If it was just a personal thing with Boris I wouldn't be too concerned. More worrying would be if it reflected a diminution of Britain's importance, as Sir John was pointing out.
I mean if, say, the US is trying to do business with the EU then it would be reasonable to assume previously that the UK could provide a more friendly way in than perhaps other nations. Now that the UK is still friendly, but is no longer a way in to the EU it is reasonable to assume that the US cares less about us.
Whether that is a good or a bad thing I have no idea.
After watching the US over the last few days handling the transition is there anyone left here who supports Cummings plans to undo a professional, non-partisan civil service?
If Boris only gets a call after Biden has phoned Trudeau, Martin, Netanyahu, Merkel, Macron, Von Der Leyen, Suga, Modi and Xi and likely a few other leaders into the bargain too it will clearly be seen and probably be intended to be seen as a clear Biden snub to Boris
If it was just a personal thing with Boris I wouldn't be too concerned. More worrying would be if it reflected a diminution of Britain's importance, as Sir John was pointing out.
you just dont get this the UK and all of Europe will diminish in importance, its simple demographics.
White Europeans were 20% of the worlds population in the middle of the last century. By the middle of this one theyll be 5%. Nigeria is forecast to have a bugger population than the EU by 2100. Were like former nobility in the Austro-hungary worrying about who gets precedence
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
So why am I not surprised. He never said as you claimed that "he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil" - that was a lie you invented.
Instead he defended [Labour] Jack Straw's right to "ask" someone to remove a face covering to that he could talk to her properly.
Pre-covid that was absolutely entirely reasonable! And in the context he was writing in defending women's rights to wear those veils which were being made illegal across much of liberal western Europe.
What exactly is your issue with that?
He was not talking about Jack Straw, that was just an aside, can't you read you moron? "I should feel fully entitled" (As if citing Jack Straw gives him some kind of cover!)
A moslem woman has the courage to approach her MP with an issue, and for whatever reason does not want to take her veil off. That is entirely reasonable. To insist she take it off shows, at best, a total lack of human empathy.
He never said he would insist it be taken off.
On the other hand Macron did. On the other hand Merkel did.
The countries where it is insisted upon removing it in Europe are: Germany, Austria, Denmark, France, Belgium, Latvia and Bulgaria.
Are you calling Merkel an Islamophobe?
Incidentally once again if you had taken a scintilla of effort into reading the article yourself you would have learnt the fact he was arguing against banning it, not in favour of it. 🤦🏻♂️
I suppose actually reading something for yourself is just too damn difficult for you.
I actually did read the article at the time- which you obviously hadn't because you were unfamiliar with it.
Merkel calling for the banning of moslem face-coverings is of course islamophobic.
Here's some context for you: I have lived the last four years 200 metres from the largest mosque in germany. I don't think I have ever seen a woman wearing a burqa or veil, in all that time (and no there is no general ban here).
I think even you would admit that some of the bans on islamic clothing in Germany are islamophobic. For example, teachers in some states are not allowed to wear moslem headscarves, but are allowed to wear nun's habits, or other christian symbols.
No I am familiar with his actual article as written, what I'm not familiar with is your bullshit misinterpretation claiming he said the opposite to what he actually said. Which seems to be a pattern with you, in baseball terms three strikes, you're out.
As for the burqa and Islamophobia I completely agree with your middle comment that Muslim women in general don't wear the burqa, because the burqa has nothing to do with Islam. It is cultural not religious.
There is absolutely nothing in Islam that demands the burqa.
If Boris only gets a call after Biden has phoned Trudeau, Martin, Netanyahu, Merkel, Macron, Von Der Leyen, Suga, Modi and Xi and likely a few other leaders into the bargain too it will clearly be seen and probably be intended to be seen as a clear Biden snub to Boris
If it was just a personal thing with Boris I wouldn't be too concerned. More worrying would be if it reflected a diminution of Britain's importance, as Sir John was pointing out.
I think it is a bit of both, I would expect though a future PM Starmer would have a much warmer relationship with President Biden or a future President Harris than PM Boris will have with President Biden, Biden is anti the internal markets bill, sees Boris as the British Trump and was appalled by Boris' comments about Obama and his Kenyan ancestry, it will be the frostiest relationship between an incoming President and the UK PM since Clinton and Major in 1993 (given Central Office was assisting Bush Snr on his re election bid)
If Boris only gets a call after Biden has phoned Trudeau, Martin, Netanyahu, Merkel, Macron, Von Der Leyen, Suga, Modi and Xi and likely a few other leaders into the bargain too it will clearly be seen and probably be intended to be seen as a clear Biden snub to Boris
If it was just a personal thing with Boris I wouldn't be too concerned. More worrying would be if it reflected a diminution of Britain's importance, as Sir John was pointing out.
I mean if, say, the US is trying to do business with the EU then it would be reasonable to assume previously that the UK could provide a more friendly way in than perhaps other nations. Now that the UK is still friendly, but is no longer a way in to the EU it is reasonable to assume that the US cares less about us.
Whether that is a good or a bad thing I have no idea.
Indeed, the US always liked us because we had powerful influences in places they never could - be it the colonies of Empire or the EU. Now all that is gone and our future lies with being a US adjunct, if they even grant us that.
The current outsider in USPE 2020 has been backed in from over 30 a few days ago to 11. What's going on? How much further can he come in before Betfair pay out on his opponent?
Hello Hubert,
It's because (and not for the 1st time) lots of people are getting sucked into Donald Trump's bullshit and not thinking straight.
In particular atm they are taking Republican noises of support for him as evidence that he has a ghost of a chance of overturning the election result. He doesn't. The courts - not even the hack that is Brett Kavanaugh - will not do such a thing without overwhelming evidence and there is NO evidence. Neither will states won by Biden instruct their EC electors to vote for Trump. That ends US democracy and kicks off civil war. It is - literally - unthinkable unless you've lost your perspective.
But this is why Trump is into 11 on Betfair. Take a deep breath and a step back and it's clear that he should be 1000.
If I run into an impecunious widow this afternoon - and I might - I will have no hesitation in advising her to withdraw her life savings (the money saved up over many years for a decent funeral with a bit left over for the grandkids) from the Halifax and stick it all on Biden at the currently available 1.09.
In addition, Betfair rules suggest that in the unlikely event of the SC doing Trump's bidding they may well pay out on the ECV resullts as confirmed by each of the States. An alternative would perhaps be to void the market but I think they'd run with the official results as returned.
If the SC does somehow find for Trump, how would it actually work out? Would they award the ECV to the GoP? Would they void the elections and insist on a rerun, either nationally or in the contested States? What happens to the Presidency meanwhile?
It would be mayhem if not widespread civil unrest. Inconceivable.
It is. And a great betting opportunity if you have any appetite left after the frenzy of the main event - which your screen name tells me you probably do!
Way I'm feeling right now it should be Peter_the_Cattle-trucked but I'll be back in good spirits soon enough, thank you.
If Boris only gets a call after Biden has phoned Trudeau, Martin, Netanyahu, Merkel, Macron, Von Der Leyen, Suga, Modi and Xi and likely a few other leaders into the bargain too it will clearly be seen and probably be intended to be seen as a clear Biden snub to Boris
If it was just a personal thing with Boris I wouldn't be too concerned. More worrying would be if it reflected a diminution of Britain's importance, as Sir John was pointing out.
you just dont get this the UK and all of Europe will diminish in importance, its simple demographics.
White Europeans were 20% of the worlds population in the middle of the last century. By the middle of this one theyll be 5%. Nigeria is forecast to have a bugger population than the EU by 2100. Were like former nobility in the Austro-hungary worrying about who gets precedence
Though the EU will still likely join the US and China and maybe India as the world's largest economies by 2050 and Biden will still call the Irish and Israeli PM before he calls Boris despite those nations having smaller populations and economies than we do
Biden transition officials are looking at their legal options when it comes to having the General Services Administration prepare an ascertainment letter to officially begin the Biden presidential transition.
If Boris only gets a call after Biden has phoned Trudeau, Martin, Netanyahu, Merkel, Macron, Von Der Leyen, Suga, Modi and Xi and likely a few other leaders into the bargain too it will clearly be seen and probably be intended to be seen as a clear Biden snub to Boris
If it was just a personal thing with Boris I wouldn't be too concerned. More worrying would be if it reflected a diminution of Britain's importance, as Sir John was pointing out.
I mean if, say, the US is trying to do business with the EU then it would be reasonable to assume previously that the UK could provide a more friendly way in than perhaps other nations. Now that the UK is still friendly, but is no longer a way in to the EU it is reasonable to assume that the US cares less about us.
Whether that is a good or a bad thing I have no idea.
Indeed, the US always liked us because we had powerful influences in places they never could - be it the colonies of Empire or the EU. Now all that is gone and our future lies with being a US adjunct, if they even grant us that.
The UK hasn't had powerful influence in the EU since it became the EU.
Remind me how many EU nations the UK was able to get to join the Iraq War when we went to war with the USA?
Biden transition officials are looking at their legal options when it comes to having the General Services Administration prepare an ascertainment letter to officially begin the Biden presidential transition.
If Boris only gets a call after Biden has phoned Trudeau, Martin, Netanyahu, Merkel, Macron, Von Der Leyen, Suga, Modi and Xi and likely a few other leaders into the bargain too it will clearly be seen and probably be intended to be seen as a clear Biden snub to Boris
If it was just a personal thing with Boris I wouldn't be too concerned. More worrying would be if it reflected a diminution of Britain's importance, as Sir John was pointing out.
I mean if, say, the US is trying to do business with the EU then it would be reasonable to assume previously that the UK could provide a more friendly way in than perhaps other nations. Now that the UK is still friendly, but is no longer a way in to the EU it is reasonable to assume that the US cares less about us.
Whether that is a good or a bad thing I have no idea.
Indeed, the US always liked us because we had powerful influences in places they never could - be it the colonies of Empire or the EU. Now all that is gone and our future lies with being a US adjunct, if they even grant us that.
The UK hasn't had powerful influence in the EU since it became the EU.
Remind me how many EU nations the UK was able to get to join the Iraq War when we went to war with the USA?
The current outsider in USPE 2020 has been backed in from over 30 a few days ago to 11. What's going on? How much further can he come in before Betfair pay out on his opponent?
Hello Hubert,
It's because (and not for the 1st time) lots of people are getting sucked into Donald Trump's bullshit and not thinking straight.
In particular atm they are taking Republican noises of support for him as evidence that he has a ghost of a chance of overturning the election result. He doesn't. The courts - not even the hack that is Brett Kavanaugh - will not do such a thing without overwhelming evidence and there is NO evidence. Neither will states won by Biden instruct their EC electors to vote for Trump. That ends US democracy and kicks off civil war. It is - literally - unthinkable unless you've lost your perspective.
But this is why Trump is into 11 on Betfair. Take a deep breath and a step back and it's clear that he should be 1000.
If I run into an impecunious widow this afternoon - and I might - I will have no hesitation in advising her to withdraw her life savings (the money saved up over many years for a decent funeral with a bit left over for the grandkids) from the Halifax and stick it all on Biden at the currently available 1.09.
In addition, Betfair rules suggest that in the unlikely event of the SC doing Trump's bidding they may well pay out on the ECV resullts as confirmed by each of the States. An alternative would perhaps be to void the market but I think they'd run with the official results as returned.
If the SC does somehow find for Trump, how would it actually work out? Would they award the ECV to the GoP? Would they void the elections and insist on a rerun, either nationally or in the contested States? What happens to the Presidency meanwhile?
It would be mayhem if not widespread civil unrest. Inconceivable.
It is. And a great betting opportunity if you have any appetite left after the frenzy of the main event - which your screen name tells me you probably do!
Way I'm feeling right now it should be Peter_the_Cattle-trucked but I'll be back in good spirits soon enough, thank you.
If Boris only gets a call after Biden has phoned Trudeau, Martin, Netanyahu, Merkel, Macron, Von Der Leyen, Suga, Modi and Xi and likely a few other leaders into the bargain too it will clearly be seen and probably be intended to be seen as a clear Biden snub to Boris
If it was just a personal thing with Boris I wouldn't be too concerned. More worrying would be if it reflected a diminution of Britain's importance, as Sir John was pointing out.
you just dont get this the UK and all of Europe will diminish in importance, its simple demographics.
White Europeans were 20% of the worlds population in the middle of the last century. By the middle of this one theyll be 5%. Nigeria is forecast to have a bugger population than the EU by 2100. Were like former nobility in the Austro-hungary worrying about who gets precedence
If Boris only gets a call after Biden has phoned Trudeau, Martin, Netanyahu, Merkel, Macron, Von Der Leyen, Suga, Modi and Xi and likely a few other leaders into the bargain too it will clearly be seen and probably be intended to be seen as a clear Biden snub to Boris
If it was just a personal thing with Boris I wouldn't be too concerned. More worrying would be if it reflected a diminution of Britain's importance, as Sir John was pointing out.
I mean if, say, the US is trying to do business with the EU then it would be reasonable to assume previously that the UK could provide a more friendly way in than perhaps other nations. Now that the UK is still friendly, but is no longer a way in to the EU it is reasonable to assume that the US cares less about us.
Whether that is a good or a bad thing I have no idea.
Indeed, the US always liked us because we had powerful influences in places they never could - be it the colonies of Empire or the EU. Now all that is gone and our future lies with being a US adjunct, if they even grant us that.
The UK hasn't had powerful influence in the EU since it became the EU.
Remind me how many EU nations the UK was able to get to join the Iraq War when we went to war with the USA?
So little confidence in your own country. I might disqualify you from being allowed to opine on English matters.
I write a brilliant article. And you argue about bloody burqas! And Trump. Again. And his bloody awful lawyers who give wonderful people like me a bad name.
Humph!
Anyway Olivia Coleman is utterly miscast as HMQ. She should have played Mrs Thatcher instead.
** goes off to sulk **
Oh come on Cyclefree, topic drift isn't so much a PB tradition as a requirement!
I write a brilliant article. And you argue about bloody burqas! And Trump. Again. And his bloody awful lawyers who give wonderful people like me a bad name.
Humph!
Anyway Olivia Coleman is utterly miscast as HMQ. She should have played Mrs Thatcher instead.
** goes off to sulk **
Unfortunately for most engagement with a lawyer is a disappointment. Either we are accused of or committed a regrettable act, or we are trying to apply the law to our own advantage. Neither of these I presume is enjoyable.
I'd rather have just received the money due without the stress and worry of involving a barrister. It's like startjng a thread saying post your experiences of traffic wardens. Whilst I'm sure SeanT may have had some romantic dalliance, and others may have isolated tales of talking someone around or successfully appealing, most will just have tales of woe!
Your contributions are always entertaining though and I will add this 'joke' How can you tell if a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving.
If Boris only gets a call after Biden has phoned Trudeau, Martin, Netanyahu, Merkel, Macron, Von Der Leyen, Suga, Modi and Xi and likely a few other leaders into the bargain too it will clearly be seen and probably be intended to be seen as a clear Biden snub to Boris
If it was just a personal thing with Boris I wouldn't be too concerned. More worrying would be if it reflected a diminution of Britain's importance, as Sir John was pointing out.
I mean if, say, the US is trying to do business with the EU then it would be reasonable to assume previously that the UK could provide a more friendly way in than perhaps other nations. Now that the UK is still friendly, but is no longer a way in to the EU it is reasonable to assume that the US cares less about us.
Whether that is a good or a bad thing I have no idea.
Indeed, the US always liked us because we had powerful influences in places they never could - be it the colonies of Empire or the EU. Now all that is gone and our future lies with being a US adjunct, if they even grant us that.
The UK hasn't had powerful influence in the EU since it became the EU.
Remind me how many EU nations the UK was able to get to join the Iraq War when we went to war with the USA?
Poland, Italy, and the Netherlands?
And of those, was it the UK or US that persuaded them?
If Boris only gets a call after Biden has phoned Trudeau, Martin, Netanyahu, Merkel, Macron, Von Der Leyen, Suga, Modi and Xi and likely a few other leaders into the bargain too it will clearly be seen and probably be intended to be seen as a clear Biden snub to Boris
If it was just a personal thing with Boris I wouldn't be too concerned. More worrying would be if it reflected a diminution of Britain's importance, as Sir John was pointing out.
you just dont get this the UK and all of Europe will diminish in importance, its simple demographics.
White Europeans were 20% of the worlds population in the middle of the last century. By the middle of this one theyll be 5%. Nigeria is forecast to have a bugger population than the EU by 2100. Were like former nobility in the Austro-hungary worrying about who gets precedence
Though the EU will still likely join the US and China and maybe India as the world's largest economies by 2050 and Biden will still call the Irish and Israeli PM before he calls Boris despite those nations having smaller populations and economies than we do
The worlds largest economies will all be ultimately driven by population size. Given the choice between having a swiss standard of living or and Indian one Ill go Swiss.
Biden will be dead by 2050 and he is simply a throw back because of his age. The great appeal to Irish America is dying on the vine as immigration has dried up. Trump stole half their votes. For rainbow inspired US politicians the future is Latino, Indian and muslim, Ireland too has had its day.
If Boris only gets a call after Biden has phoned Trudeau, Martin, Netanyahu, Merkel, Macron, Von Der Leyen, Suga, Modi and Xi and likely a few other leaders into the bargain too it will clearly be seen and probably be intended to be seen as a clear Biden snub to Boris
If it was just a personal thing with Boris I wouldn't be too concerned. More worrying would be if it reflected a diminution of Britain's importance, as Sir John was pointing out.
I mean if, say, the US is trying to do business with the EU then it would be reasonable to assume previously that the UK could provide a more friendly way in than perhaps other nations. Now that the UK is still friendly, but is no longer a way in to the EU it is reasonable to assume that the US cares less about us.
Whether that is a good or a bad thing I have no idea.
Indeed, the US always liked us because we had powerful influences in places they never could - be it the colonies of Empire or the EU. Now all that is gone and our future lies with being a US adjunct, if they even grant us that.
The UK hasn't had powerful influence in the EU since it became the EU.
Remind me how many EU nations the UK was able to get to join the Iraq War when we went to war with the USA?
Poland, Italy, and the Netherlands?
And of those, was it the UK or US that persuaded them?
If Boris only gets a call after Biden has phoned Trudeau, Martin, Netanyahu, Merkel, Macron, Von Der Leyen, Suga, Modi and Xi and likely a few other leaders into the bargain too it will clearly be seen and probably be intended to be seen as a clear Biden snub to Boris
If it was just a personal thing with Boris I wouldn't be too concerned. More worrying would be if it reflected a diminution of Britain's importance, as Sir John was pointing out.
I mean if, say, the US is trying to do business with the EU then it would be reasonable to assume previously that the UK could provide a more friendly way in than perhaps other nations. Now that the UK is still friendly, but is no longer a way in to the EU it is reasonable to assume that the US cares less about us.
Whether that is a good or a bad thing I have no idea.
Indeed, the US always liked us because we had powerful influences in places they never could - be it the colonies of Empire or the EU. Now all that is gone and our future lies with being a US adjunct, if they even grant us that.
The UK hasn't had powerful influence in the EU since it became the EU.
Remind me how many EU nations the UK was able to get to join the Iraq War when we went to war with the USA?
Poland, Italy, and the Netherlands?
Did the UK convince them to join or did the USA do so?
Not quite as embarrassing as cancelling your membership of the National Trust on the say so of Toby Young I would have thought.
Yup, that was me and I did it based on reading its hatchet-job report in full and then I took my own decision as a consequence.
People are gradually coming round to my way of thinking on this Woke nonsense, including a high number of minorities - my wife's Sikh boss at Siemens went on a rant about how ludicrous it all was on her team meeting this morning.
I expect to be mocked for it relentlessly and then, once the zeitgeist is up, the same people will argue they really agreed with me all along.
Those who are able to demonstrate they have their own independent minds with the courage of their convictions will win my respect.
driven bonkers by wokeness....
You know I'm right and will come round one day.
In the meantime, you will make yourself feel better about your pedestrian intellectual ability by throwing out barbs.
I really don't care how you have justified your actions to yourself. Merely pointing out that your actions appear to onlookers to be, to borrow a phrase, 'bonkers'.
Not bonkers at all I'm just smarter and have much more intelligence and foresight than you.
It's ok though, you shouldn't feel bad about being stupid. Lots of people are.
Looking at that first paragraph, Donald Trump, I suspect, has hijacked your PB account.
If Boris only gets a call after Biden has phoned Trudeau, Martin, Netanyahu, Merkel, Macron, Von Der Leyen, Suga, Modi and Xi and likely a few other leaders into the bargain too it will clearly be seen and probably be intended to be seen as a clear Biden snub to Boris
If it was just a personal thing with Boris I wouldn't be too concerned. More worrying would be if it reflected a diminution of Britain's importance, as Sir John was pointing out.
I mean if, say, the US is trying to do business with the EU then it would be reasonable to assume previously that the UK could provide a more friendly way in than perhaps other nations. Now that the UK is still friendly, but is no longer a way in to the EU it is reasonable to assume that the US cares less about us.
Whether that is a good or a bad thing I have no idea.
Indeed, the US always liked us because we had powerful influences in places they never could - be it the colonies of Empire or the EU. Now all that is gone and our future lies with being a US adjunct, if they even grant us that.
The UK hasn't had powerful influence in the EU since it became the EU.
Remind me how many EU nations the UK was able to get to join the Iraq War when we went to war with the USA?
Poland, Italy, and the Netherlands?
Did the UK convince them to join or did the USA do so?
The US foreign minister Tony Blair did a lot of the work.
If Boris only gets a call after Biden has phoned Trudeau, Martin, Netanyahu, Merkel, Macron, Von Der Leyen, Suga, Modi and Xi and likely a few other leaders into the bargain too it will clearly be seen and probably be intended to be seen as a clear Biden snub to Boris
If it was just a personal thing with Boris I wouldn't be too concerned. More worrying would be if it reflected a diminution of Britain's importance, as Sir John was pointing out.
I mean if, say, the US is trying to do business with the EU then it would be reasonable to assume previously that the UK could provide a more friendly way in than perhaps other nations. Now that the UK is still friendly, but is no longer a way in to the EU it is reasonable to assume that the US cares less about us.
Whether that is a good or a bad thing I have no idea.
Indeed, the US always liked us because we had powerful influences in places they never could - be it the colonies of Empire or the EU. Now all that is gone and our future lies with being a US adjunct, if they even grant us that.
The UK hasn't had powerful influence in the EU since it became the EU.
Remind me how many EU nations the UK was able to get to join the Iraq War when we went to war with the USA?
Poland, Italy, and the Netherlands?
Did the UK convince them to join or did the USA do so?
If Boris only gets a call after Biden has phoned Trudeau, Martin, Netanyahu, Merkel, Macron, Von Der Leyen, Suga, Modi and Xi and likely a few other leaders into the bargain too it will clearly be seen and probably be intended to be seen as a clear Biden snub to Boris
If it was just a personal thing with Boris I wouldn't be too concerned. More worrying would be if it reflected a diminution of Britain's importance, as Sir John was pointing out.
you just dont get this the UK and all of Europe will diminish in importance, its simple demographics.
White Europeans were 20% of the worlds population in the middle of the last century. By the middle of this one theyll be 5%. Nigeria is forecast to have a bugger population than the EU by 2100. Were like former nobility in the Austro-hungary worrying about who gets precedence
"bigger" - but yes good helicopter point.
Any predictions of population by 2100 are of decidedly marginal interest today. And likely to be spectacularly wrong.
Proclaim that something is going to happen (the virus will disappear, a healthcare plan will come out, etc.) very loudly. Forget about it. Repeat.
This way keeps his supporters riled up. And then he moves on to the next thing.
There is no evidence.
Has the challenge to the late postals in PA been ruled on yet? From memory there were about 30k. Apologies if I have missed it.
"Pennsylvania election officials have not yet provided a statewide tally of late-arriving ballots. Still, based on estimates from a number of counties, the total may not exceed 10,000."
I think I was confusing it with the 30k from Allegheny County that were originally on hold
Just read that Wales have cancelled all exams. Seems like a completely stupid idea. English and Scottish universities should require students to have sat exams for entry this year, the idiots in Wales are damaging the education of students for absolutely no reason.
Not quite as embarrassing as cancelling your membership of the National Trust on the say so of Toby Young I would have thought.
Yup, that was me and I did it based on reading its hatchet-job report in full and then I took my own decision as a consequence.
People are gradually coming round to my way of thinking on this Woke nonsense, including a high number of minorities - my wife's Sikh boss at Siemens went on a rant about how ludicrous it all was on her team meeting this morning.
I expect to be mocked for it relentlessly and then, once the zeitgeist is up, the same people will argue they really agreed with me all along.
Those who are able to demonstrate they have their own independent minds with the courage of their convictions will win my respect.
driven bonkers by wokeness....
You know I'm right and will come round one day.
In the meantime, you will make yourself feel better about your pedestrian intellectual ability by throwing out barbs.
I really don't care how you have justified your actions to yourself. Merely pointing out that your actions appear to onlookers to be, to borrow a phrase, 'bonkers'.
Not bonkers at all I'm just smarter and have much more intelligence and foresight than you.
It's ok though, you shouldn't feel bad about being stupid. Lots of people are.
Looking at that first paragraph, Donald Trump, I suspect, has hijacked your PB account.
Just read that Wales have cancelled all exams. Seems like a completely stupid idea. English and Scottish universities should require students to have sat exams for entry this year, the idiots in Wales are damaging the education of students for absolutely no reason.
Agree 100%. It's going to be tough enough getting into university this year what with the spillover from last year's grade inflation and deferrals. If you're a student in the rest of the UK you shouldn't have to be judged against students in Wales who have not sat an exam.
Just read that Wales have cancelled all exams. Seems like a completely stupid idea. English and Scottish universities should require students to have sat exams for entry this year, the idiots in Wales are damaging the education of students for absolutely no reason.
They will still have grades, it just won't be exam-based. More in-school assessment.
On topic to respond to a really good header: a lot of lawyers is both a symptom and a cause of an undesirable state of affairs. In software development I've seen the temptation and futility of trying to specify systems in great detail before building a prototype or early release that can then be tried out to get feedback and to explore the "problem space". This is analogous to the over-legalistic turn that our society has taken. If informal shared morality and personal responsibility declines then the inefficient and repressive state moves in.
Just read that Wales have cancelled all exams. Seems like a completely stupid idea. English and Scottish universities should require students to have sat exams for entry this year, the idiots in Wales are damaging the education of students for absolutely no reason.
They will still have grades, it just won't be exam-based. More in-school assessment.
Which puts English, Scottish and NI students at a huge disadvantage because they won't have teacher inflated grades. Universities from the three should insist on A-Levels or an equivalent exam based assessment for entry in the 21/22 academic year with an exception for spillover for last year. The Welsh government is making a choice to cancel exams, it doesn't need to do so.
The current outsider in USPE 2020 has been backed in from over 30 a few days ago to 11. What's going on? How much further can he come in before Betfair pay out on his opponent?
Hello Hubert,
It's because (and not for the 1st time) lots of people are getting sucked into Donald Trump's bullshit and not thinking straight.
In particular atm they are taking Republican noises of support for him as evidence that he has a ghost of a chance of overturning the election result. He doesn't. The courts - not even the hack that is Brett Kavanaugh - will not do such a thing without overwhelming evidence and there is NO evidence. Neither will states won by Biden instruct their EC electors to vote for Trump. That ends US democracy and kicks off civil war. It is - literally - unthinkable unless you've lost your perspective.
But this is why Trump is into 11 on Betfair. Take a deep breath and a step back and it's clear that he should be 1000.
If I run into an impecunious widow this afternoon - and I might - I will have no hesitation in advising her to withdraw her life savings (the money saved up over many years for a decent funeral with a bit left over for the grandkids) from the Halifax and stick it all on Biden at the currently available 1.09.
In addition, Betfair rules suggest that in the unlikely event of the SC doing Trump's bidding they may well pay out on the ECV resullts as confirmed by each of the States. An alternative would perhaps be to void the market but I think they'd run with the official results as returned.
If the SC does somehow find for Trump, how would it actually work out? Would they award the ECV to the GoP? Would they void the elections and insist on a rerun, either nationally or in the contested States? What happens to the Presidency meanwhile?
It would be mayhem if not widespread civil unrest. Inconceivable.
It is. And a great betting opportunity if you have any appetite left after the frenzy of the main event - which your screen name tells me you probably do!
Way I'm feeling right now it should be Peter_the_Cattle-trucked but I'll be back in good spirits soon enough, thank you.
But you made a net profit all told, I hope?
No, but I avoided an effing great loss so it feels like a win.
It's been a busy couple of days for me so I just got caught up with my own share portfolio. My bet on a vaccine based recovery in travel related shares is going very well, coming good a month earlier than expected too!
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
He called the president of Turkey a goat-fucker. Now Erdogan is an arsehole, but imagine Corbyn had called Netanyahu a goat-fucker.
Yes he did. In an award winning poem lauded by the Guardian as a principled defence of free speech after Erdogan cracked down on free speech and the German's helped facilitate it.
You have an issue with that? Or again are you infamiliar with the concept of context and drawing these from a list someone else wrote.
Next time you bullshit us with something can you please be so kind as to provide the context yourself? Because all this bullshit is transparently out of context.
So he should get a career as a shit poet, then. He's currently pretending to be a shit prime minister unfortunately.
The "It was in a poetry competition" defence.
It's pathetic.
You sound just like the defenders of anti-semites in the Labour Party.
You haven't posted a single bit of evidence of Islamophobia.
So far your "evidence" if you actually read what he wrote for yourself is:
1: He (with Bianca) condemned the west letting Muslims be massacred in Srebenica. 2: He said that the burqa ban being adopted in France, Germany, Denmark, Belgium and more should not be adopted in the UK. 3: He defended free speech after a comedian was arrested in Germany for insulting an increasingly dictatorial Head of State.
That is your lot? It is pathetic.
While as most by now have gathered I think Boris is a complete twat so hate to defend him I do wonder why Kamski is here lecturing us on how islamaphobic he is in stead of on a german forum lambasting his own government for their burqa ban
Sure I think Germany is generally more racist than the UK. But less xenophobic (can't have people abroad "lecturing us" can we?). And definitely less jingoistic.
Should I be "ranting" about the German government on this forum? Doesn't really make sense.
Well, every one rants about the US Government here, so why not?
Just read that Wales have cancelled all exams. Seems like a completely stupid idea. English and Scottish universities should require students to have sat exams for entry this year, the idiots in Wales are damaging the education of students for absolutely no reason.
They will still have grades, it just won't be exam-based. More in-school assessment.
Which puts English, Scottish and NI students at a huge disadvantage because they won't have teacher inflated grades. Universities from the three should insist on A-Levels or an equivalent exam based assessment for entry in the 21/22 academic year with an exception for spillover for last year. The Welsh government is making a choice to cancel exams, it doesn't need to do so.
They won't though.
So if the English don't want to be at a disadvantage they can do the same thing too - or accept it.
Just read that Wales have cancelled all exams. Seems like a completely stupid idea. English and Scottish universities should require students to have sat exams for entry this year, the idiots in Wales are damaging the education of students for absolutely no reason.
They will still have grades, it just won't be exam-based. More in-school assessment.
Which puts English, Scottish and NI students at a huge disadvantage because they won't have teacher inflated grades. Universities from the three should insist on A-Levels or an equivalent exam based assessment for entry in the 21/22 academic year with an exception for spillover for last year. The Welsh government is making a choice to cancel exams, it doesn't need to do so.
As I recall from the discussions over the exams affair in the summer, the only real inflation was because the students had been deemed to work to their true potential, and the accidents of exam day weren't happening (eg granny died, dog died, hungover from the night before, got the runs etc.)
I think COVID has crept up on ND and the like substantially in hot weather, a summer type slow wave, but it's now swing season and 23-29/10, in particular, were pretty grotty in Kansas:
On topic to respond to a really good header: a lot of lawyers is both a symptom and a cause of an undesirable state of affairs. In software development I've seen the temptation and futility of trying to specify systems in great detail before building a prototype or early release that can then be tried out to get feedback and to explore the "problem space". This is analogous to the over-legalistic turn that our society has taken. If informal shared morality and personal responsibility declines then the inefficient and repressive state moves in.
Good point, the best bit in the bible* is to treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. If that was more widely encouraged we would have far less need for lawyers. Too many people think its about getting one over on everyone else and the system (not exempting myself from this at times, we can all be better).
* I dont actually even know if its really in the bible but never mind, its a great saying and motto.
I'm confused. The chart he shows makes no mention of religion.
If you want that information, white Evangelicals voted 75% Trump, white mainline Protestants also voted for Trump more narrowly, Catholics voted 51% for Biden, 77% of Jews and most Muslims voted for Biden, the non religious voted 65% Biden
On topic to respond to a really good header: a lot of lawyers is both a symptom and a cause of an undesirable state of affairs. In software development I've seen the temptation and futility of trying to specify systems in great detail before building a prototype or early release that can then be tried out to get feedback and to explore the "problem space". This is analogous to the over-legalistic turn that our society has taken. If informal shared morality and personal responsibility declines then the inefficient and repressive state moves in.
Good point, the best bit in the bible* is to treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. If that was more widely encouraged we would have far less need for lawyers. Too many people think its about getting one over on everyone else and the system (not exempting myself from this at times, we can all be better).
* I dont actually even know if its really in the bible but never mind, its a great saying and motto.
Golden rule....
I would also say that much of the law treats society as a non-linear system. Applying an action x will not lead to response y, necessarily.
The idea that you can fix that problem with adding actions x1, x2 etc is *provably* not going to work.
Just read that Wales have cancelled all exams. Seems like a completely stupid idea. English and Scottish universities should require students to have sat exams for entry this year, the idiots in Wales are damaging the education of students for absolutely no reason.
Scotland already made that call a while back. Whether its good or bad, Williamson will probably wait until just after exams have started to make the same call as he realises he is on his own, then wonder why pupils and teachers complain.
Just read that Wales have cancelled all exams. Seems like a completely stupid idea. English and Scottish universities should require students to have sat exams for entry this year, the idiots in Wales are damaging the education of students for absolutely no reason.
Scotland already made that call a while back. Whether its good or bad, Williamson will probably wait until just after exams have started to make the same call as he realises he is on his own, then wonder why pupils and teachers complain.
No, Scotland only cancelled their GCSE equivalents. It's basically irrelevant.
Just read that Wales have cancelled all exams. Seems like a completely stupid idea. English and Scottish universities should require students to have sat exams for entry this year, the idiots in Wales are damaging the education of students for absolutely no reason.
They will still have grades, it just won't be exam-based. More in-school assessment.
Which puts English, Scottish and NI students at a huge disadvantage because they won't have teacher inflated grades. Universities from the three should insist on A-Levels or an equivalent exam based assessment for entry in the 21/22 academic year with an exception for spillover for last year. The Welsh government is making a choice to cancel exams, it doesn't need to do so.
They won't though.
So if the English don't want to be at a disadvantage they can do the same thing too - or accept it.
It's time for governments to stop using the virus as an excuse to stop providing the most basic services, Welsh students are being let down again.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
He called the president of Turkey a goat-fucker. Now Erdogan is an arsehole, but imagine Corbyn had called Netanyahu a goat-fucker.
Yes he did. In an award winning poem lauded by the Guardian as a principled defence of free speech after Erdogan cracked down on free speech and the German's helped facilitate it.
You have an issue with that? Or again are you infamiliar with the concept of context and drawing these from a list someone else wrote.
Next time you bullshit us with something can you please be so kind as to provide the context yourself? Because all this bullshit is transparently out of context.
So he should get a career as a shit poet, then. He's currently pretending to be a shit prime minister unfortunately.
The "It was in a poetry competition" defence.
It's pathetic.
You sound just like the defenders of anti-semites in the Labour Party.
You haven't posted a single bit of evidence of Islamophobia.
So far your "evidence" if you actually read what he wrote for yourself is:
1: He (with Bianca) condemned the west letting Muslims be massacred in Srebenica. 2: He said that the burqa ban being adopted in France, Germany, Denmark, Belgium and more should not be adopted in the UK. 3: He defended free speech after a comedian was arrested in Germany for insulting an increasingly dictatorial Head of State.
That is your lot? It is pathetic.
While as most by now have gathered I think Boris is a complete twat so hate to defend him I do wonder why Kamski is here lecturing us on how islamaphobic he is in stead of on a german forum lambasting his own government for their burqa ban
Sure I think Germany is generally more racist than the UK. But less xenophobic (can't have people abroad "lecturing us" can we?). And definitely less jingoistic.
Should I be "ranting" about the German government on this forum? Doesn't really make sense.
Well, every one rants about the US Government here, so why not?
Certainly. And it makes for important context, since while if people here are complaining about other places, or about here, the situation in other places is pretty relevant if one is going for moral outrage.
Just read that Wales have cancelled all exams. Seems like a completely stupid idea. English and Scottish universities should require students to have sat exams for entry this year, the idiots in Wales are damaging the education of students for absolutely no reason.
They will still have grades, it just won't be exam-based. More in-school assessment.
Which puts English, Scottish and NI students at a huge disadvantage because they won't have teacher inflated grades. Universities from the three should insist on A-Levels or an equivalent exam based assessment for entry in the 21/22 academic year with an exception for spillover for last year. The Welsh government is making a choice to cancel exams, it doesn't need to do so.
They won't though.
So if the English don't want to be at a disadvantage they can do the same thing too - or accept it.
Seriously? I prefer Max's suggestion - let the Welsh go to Welsh universities.
I'm confused. The chart he shows makes no mention of religion.
If you want that information, white Evangelicals voted 75% Trump, white mainline Protestants also voted for Trump more narrowly, Catholics voted 51% for Biden, 77% of Jews and most Muslims voted for Biden, the non religious voted 65% Biden
The current outsider in USPE 2020 has been backed in from over 30 a few days ago to 11. What's going on? How much further can he come in before Betfair pay out on his opponent?
Hello Hubert,
It's because (and not for the 1st time) lots of people are getting sucked into Donald Trump's bullshit and not thinking straight.
In particular atm they are taking Republican noises of support for him as evidence that he has a ghost of a chance of overturning the election result. He doesn't. The courts - not even the hack that is Brett Kavanaugh - will not do such a thing without overwhelming evidence and there is NO evidence. Neither will states won by Biden instruct their EC electors to vote for Trump. That ends US democracy and kicks off civil war. It is - literally - unthinkable unless you've lost your perspective.
But this is why Trump is into 11 on Betfair. Take a deep breath and a step back and it's clear that he should be 1000.
If I run into an impecunious widow this afternoon - and I might - I will have no hesitation in advising her to withdraw her life savings (the money saved up over many years for a decent funeral with a bit left over for the grandkids) from the Halifax and stick it all on Biden at the currently available 1.09.
In addition, Betfair rules suggest that in the unlikely event of the SC doing Trump's bidding they may well pay out on the ECV resullts as confirmed by each of the States. An alternative would perhaps be to void the market but I think they'd run with the official results as returned.
If the SC does somehow find for Trump, how would it actually work out? Would they award the ECV to the GoP? Would they void the elections and insist on a rerun, either nationally or in the contested States? What happens to the Presidency meanwhile?
It would be mayhem if not widespread civil unrest. Inconceivable.
It is. And a great betting opportunity if you have any appetite left after the frenzy of the main event - which your screen name tells me you probably do!
Way I'm feeling right now it should be Peter_the_Cattle-trucked but I'll be back in good spirits soon enough, thank you.
But you made a net profit all told, I hope?
No, but I avoided an effing great loss so it feels like a win.
Ah ok. I thought you'd gone big pre 3/11 on Biden outright.
You mean the smuggest, most simple-minded takes aren't actually correct? Now there's a surprise.
If you read the article, it says in terms that Biden thinks Johnson is a "physical and emotional clone of Trump" and by implication that he thinks he is a nasty little man who racially insulted a former POTUS of Biden's own party and the best Johnson can hope for is they don't actually send the Seals for his head (not unless Harris succeeds, anyway).
There's a story in Struwwelpeter about how having a laugh at the blackamoor can come back and bite you in the arse, which I am sure Johnson will be jovially quoting in the Commons in due course. Good old Boris.
Just read that Wales have cancelled all exams. Seems like a completely stupid idea. English and Scottish universities should require students to have sat exams for entry this year, the idiots in Wales are damaging the education of students for absolutely no reason.
They will still have grades, it just won't be exam-based. More in-school assessment.
Which puts English, Scottish and NI students at a huge disadvantage because they won't have teacher inflated grades. Universities from the three should insist on A-Levels or an equivalent exam based assessment for entry in the 21/22 academic year with an exception for spillover for last year. The Welsh government is making a choice to cancel exams, it doesn't need to do so.
They won't though.
So if the English don't want to be at a disadvantage they can do the same thing too - or accept it.
It's time for governments to stop using the virus as an excuse to stop providing the most basic services, Welsh students are being let down again.
I agree.
I don't have a vote in Welsh elections though. And the only fix that is in England's power if you are concerned about bias is to join them at the lowest common denominator.
I write a brilliant article. And you argue about bloody burqas! And Trump. Again. And his bloody awful lawyers who give wonderful people like me a bad name.
Humph!
Anyway Olivia Coleman is utterly miscast as HMQ. She should have played Mrs Thatcher instead.
** goes off to sulk **
OK
- If you try and get rid of lawyers, you will simply get a bunch of ExpertRuleInterpreters appearing. Meet new boss... - The issue is the eco-system of politicians, the public and the law. - It is very convenient to chuck the ball over to another participant and say "their problem" - The less political stuff the lawyers need to do, the better. For the law. - For that, the politicians need to keep the law up to date. For example Gay Marriage in the UK. We didn't say that due to a re-reading of Poor Olde Magna And Her Garter that Gay Marriage had been legal since 12xx. We had a debate and changed the law. - This leads to the troubling (for some people) idea that the politicians/the people could "snatch away" rights if they are allowed to legislate on them.
I'm confused. The chart he shows makes no mention of religion.
If you want that information, white Evangelicals voted 75% Trump, white mainline Protestants also voted for Trump more narrowly, Catholics voted 51% for Biden, 77% of Jews and most Muslims voted for Biden, the non religious voted 65% Biden
Just read that Wales have cancelled all exams. Seems like a completely stupid idea. English and Scottish universities should require students to have sat exams for entry this year, the idiots in Wales are damaging the education of students for absolutely no reason.
They will still have grades, it just won't be exam-based. More in-school assessment.
Which puts English, Scottish and NI students at a huge disadvantage because they won't have teacher inflated grades. Universities from the three should insist on A-Levels or an equivalent exam based assessment for entry in the 21/22 academic year with an exception for spillover for last year. The Welsh government is making a choice to cancel exams, it doesn't need to do so.
They won't though.
So if the English don't want to be at a disadvantage they can do the same thing too - or accept it.
It's time for governments to stop using the virus as an excuse to stop providing the most basic services, Welsh students are being let down again.
I agree.
I don't have a vote in Welsh elections though. And the only fix that is in England's power if you are concerned about bias is to join them at the lowest common denominator.
No, the fix that is in England's power is for English universities to require exams to be sat for this year's cohort. Scotland and NI should also do it. That way English, Scottish and NI students won't be at a disadvantage to inflated Welsh grades.
Just read that Wales have cancelled all exams. Seems like a completely stupid idea. English and Scottish universities should require students to have sat exams for entry this year, the idiots in Wales are damaging the education of students for absolutely no reason.
They will still have grades, it just won't be exam-based. More in-school assessment.
Which puts English, Scottish and NI students at a huge disadvantage because they won't have teacher inflated grades. Universities from the three should insist on A-Levels or an equivalent exam based assessment for entry in the 21/22 academic year with an exception for spillover for last year. The Welsh government is making a choice to cancel exams, it doesn't need to do so.
They won't though.
So if the English don't want to be at a disadvantage they can do the same thing too - or accept it.
It's time for governments to stop using the virus as an excuse to stop providing the most basic services, Welsh students are being let down again.
I agree.
I don't have a vote in Welsh elections though. And the only fix that is in England's power if you are concerned about bias is to join them at the lowest common denominator.
No, the fix that is in England's power is for English universities to require exams to be sat for this year's cohort. Scotland and NI should also do it. That way English, Scottish and NI students won't be at a disadvantage to inflated Welsh grades.
That's not in England's power. The government doesn't tell universities who they can accept, you're just engaging in wishful thinking here of what you'd like to happen. If you're going to engage in wishful thinking may as well just wish that the virus magically goes away tomorrow.
Comments
Humph!
Anyway Olivia Coleman is utterly miscast as HMQ. She should have played Mrs Thatcher instead.
** goes off to sulk **
https://twitter.com/SeanTrende/status/1326175881350537216
Should I be "ranting" about the German government on this forum? Doesn't really make sense.
We're not hailing him as a major poet now, are we, as well as a prime piece of beefcake?
Whether that is a good or a bad thing I have no idea.
#androidroolsok
White Europeans were 20% of the worlds population in the middle of the last century. By the middle of this one theyll be 5%. Nigeria is forecast to have a bugger population than the EU by 2100. Were like former nobility in the Austro-hungary worrying about who gets precedence
As for the burqa and Islamophobia I completely agree with your middle comment that Muslim women in general don't wear the burqa, because the burqa has nothing to do with Islam. It is cultural not religious.
There is absolutely nothing in Islam that demands the burqa.
If I had been Boris, I would have been in Belfast to take the call.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/appeasing-trump-gop-toys-constitutional-crisis-n1247240
Remind me how many EU nations the UK was able to get to join the Iraq War when we went to war with the USA?
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1326193629317259265?s=20
I'd rather have just received the money due without the stress and worry of involving a barrister. It's like startjng a thread saying post your experiences of traffic wardens. Whilst I'm sure SeanT may have had some romantic dalliance, and others may have isolated tales of talking someone around or successfully appealing, most will just have tales of woe!
Your contributions are always entertaining though and I will add this 'joke'
How can you tell if a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving.
Biden will be dead by 2050 and he is simply a throw back because of his age. The great appeal to Irish America is dying on the vine as immigration has dried up. Trump stole half their votes. For rainbow inspired US politicians the future is Latino, Indian and muslim, Ireland too has had its day.
But yes, they won't change the result.
Any news on North Carolina's counting?
So if the English don't want to be at a disadvantage they can do the same thing too - or accept it.
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/usa/wichita/historic?month=10&year=2020
* I dont actually even know if its really in the bible but never mind, its a great saying and motto.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/06/white-evangelical-christians-supported-trump
I would also say that much of the law treats society as a non-linear system. Applying an action x will not lead to response y, necessarily.
The idea that you can fix that problem with adding actions x1, x2 etc is *provably* not going to work.
Next comes using those ugly number things to make decisions. So cold and nasty.
There's a story in Struwwelpeter about how having a laugh at the blackamoor can come back and bite you in the arse, which I am sure Johnson will be jovially quoting in the Commons in due course. Good old Boris.
I don't have a vote in Welsh elections though. And the only fix that is in England's power if you are concerned about bias is to join them at the lowest common denominator.
- If you try and get rid of lawyers, you will simply get a bunch of ExpertRuleInterpreters appearing. Meet new boss...
- The issue is the eco-system of politicians, the public and the law.
- It is very convenient to chuck the ball over to another participant and say "their problem"
- The less political stuff the lawyers need to do, the better. For the law.
- For that, the politicians need to keep the law up to date. For example Gay Marriage in the UK. We didn't say that due to a re-reading of Poor Olde Magna And Her Garter that Gay Marriage had been legal since 12xx. We had a debate and changed the law.
- This leads to the troubling (for some people) idea that the politicians/the people could "snatch away" rights if they are allowed to legislate on them.