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.
Uh huh. If either Biden or Harris interact with their allies on the basis of superficial assessments and childish resentment, then they will be no better than the petulant man-child they replaced. I happen to rate their political maturity a bit higher than that.
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.
Yes it can, the government is absolutely able to force universities to only accept exam based students as domestic students will be sitting exams to get 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.
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.
Universities are independent and make their own decisions. They're not going to write off 5% of the country and the government can't order them to do so.
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.
1 Your bullshit explanation that he was defending Jack Straw is laughable. My interpretation of "entitled to" is at least plausible. 2. Again, try replacing Jews with Moslems it might help you with your blindspot about Islamophobia. "not all Jews wear the kippah, therefore banning it isn't antisemitic". You can surely see how absurd that argument is.
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.
Yes it can, the government is absolutely able to force universities to only accept exam based students as domestic students will be sitting exams to get in.
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 **
Yes it is a good article. "Let's kill all the Lawyers" is a line that often gets a round of applause, but in the context of the play works quite differently.
Dick wants to kill all the lawyers so that the populist rebels of Cade's rebellion can loot the city without fear of the rule of law. He is not the hero of the play, but rather a villain.
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.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a U-turn in England on this one; Williamson has form. While some pupils have seen little disruption from Covid, others have seen a lot, with schools closed for more than one period. In my local sixth form college, students are receiving only around half of their timetabled lessons in person. Online learning isn't a guaranteed substitute. Many more children are being home schooled as well (fear of the virus), though I can't find reliable figures on this - I suspect there aren't any. So there will be significant inequalities built into the system if exams do proceed. Add to that two-year courses (A-levels and vocational) that were badly disrupted in academic year 2019/20, and you can foresee problems. It's really unlikely that full GCSE and A-level exams can go ahead without (legitimate) claims of unfairness. It would be better to arrive at a consensual position earlier rather than end up in the algorithm chaos we saw in the summer.
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.
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.
Yes it can, the government is absolutely able to force universities to only accept exam based students as domestic students will be sitting exams to get in.
Universities set their own admissions policies.
The government sets funding criteria and can insist on funded places (UK based students) meeting a minimum criteria.
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.
Which is in any case much what happens in Scotland, because of the one yeat Higher exam/4 year degree course.
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.
Uh huh. If either Biden or Harris interact with their allies on the basis of superficial assessments and childish resentment, then they will be no better than the petulant man-child they replaced. I happen to rate their political maturity a bit higher than that.
Why do you say the assessment is "superficial" Biden's had plenty of time to think about it. And there's a strain of PC-gone-mad thought, with which I greatly fear Biden and Harris may be tainted, which says there is nothing childish about resenting a calculated racist insult from a grown man. There's a phrase in P G Wodehouse about "kicking a hat, and then finding your rich uncle is wearing it".
I seem to recall in a major challenge to it years ago Roberts made reference to the interpretation argued for in that case would have led to a 'calamitous result'. That might weigh on the mind if junking it with no replacement is on the cards.
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.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a U-turn in England on this one; Williamson has form. While some pupils have seen little disruption from Covid, others have seen a lot, with schools closed for more than one period. In my local sixth form college, students are receiving only around half of their timetabled lessons in person. Online learning isn't a guaranteed substitute. Many more children are being home schooled as well (fear of the virus), though I can't find reliable figures on this - I suspect there aren't any. So there will be significant inequalities built into the system if exams do proceed. Add to that two-year courses (A-levels and vocational) that were badly disrupted in academic year 2019/20, and you can foresee problems. It's really unlikely that full GCSE and A-level exams can go ahead without (legitimate) claims of unfairness. It would be better to arrive at a consensual position earlier rather than end up in the algorithm chaos we saw in the summer.
There is also another issue - the Scots have (effectively) a 1 year 6th form,. EWNI have 2 years and a shorter uni course. So that's already an asymmetry anyway, simply from the start.
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.
1 Your bullshit explanation that he was defending Jack Straw is laughable. My interpretation of "entitled to" is at least plausible. 2. Again, try replacing Jews with Moslems it might help you with your blindspot about Islamophobia. "not all Jews wear the kippah, therefore banning it isn't antisemitic". You can surely see how absurd that argument is.
1. No it is not. Mine is what was literally written, yours is the ravings of a madman. 2. No it does not.
The burqa is not remotely like the kippah. The hijab is closer to the kippah, the burqa has no direct equivalent I can think of in decent society. The closest I can think of to the burqa in dehumanising the person wearing it is the KKK garb.
Well better than expected, though I expect Biden will have made clear to Boris he needs to drop the Internal Markets Bill for a trade deal with the US once he takes office in January
You can be a Catholic and a Jewish Tory if you are also a monarchist and Unionist, you cannot however be an atheist, who wants to abolish the monarchy and break up the Union as you do and still be a Tory
The more I read comments like this, the more it becomes obvious I can never be a Tory.
The behaviour of the Bluekippers are persuading me that Scotland and N Ireland are best served by leaving the UK.
BTW - I have the atheist bit all sorted out
As for the monarchy - a historic relic that still poisons English society by providing a framework for the wretched "Class system" and its associated attitudes. It needs to go.
Yes, you're yet another one who wants to blow up the whole ship because you've been driven mad by Brexit, and sense it will drive mad in turn those who advocated for it.
I remember when you were posting on here regularly as a "Better Off Out" poster.
Your arguments and style were embarrassing then and are no less embarrassing now.
The problem was that in my BOO days I had not really considered the problem and why would I? There was no prospect of leaving at that time.
Then everything changed.
When I looked at the argument in depth, it became clear that BOO was not going to work well and I changed my position (as per the quote from J M Keynes).
I have not been driven mad by Brexit - why should I? I am immune to Brexit thanks to my Irish citizenship. It is the Leavers who are going mad because their pet project is not going to plan. They are the ones running around blaming anyone and anything.
The trouble is Beverley there is never any nuance or measuredness to your argument: you've gone from vociferously venting well to my right flank and then you quickly skedaddled after the vote to the other side and now are vociferously venting at me from the left-flank whilst undergoing a complete values shift in the process. There's no consistency at all except the use of a lot of smilies, and throwing barbs at the fundamentals of the British state.
Why would I take that seriously or want to engage with it?
The only major change I made in my position has been over shifting away from BOO. The other change you are referring to (skedaddling) to the left is the resultant of a minor shift leftward by me and a massive lurch to the right by the Conservatives.
As for the smileys, we have a comedian for PM. The only thing left to do is laugh.
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.
1 Your bullshit explanation that he was defending Jack Straw is laughable. My interpretation of "entitled to" is at least plausible. 2. Again, try replacing Jews with Moslems it might help you with your blindspot about Islamophobia. "not all Jews wear the kippah, therefore banning it isn't antisemitic". You can surely see how absurd that argument is.
1. No it is not. Mine is what was literally written, yours is the ravings of a madman. 2. No it does not.
The burqa is not remotely like the kippah. The hijab is closer to the kippah, the burqa has no direct equivalent I can think of in decent society. The closest I can think of to the burqa in dehumanising the person wearing it is the KKK garb.
Ironically, it is under the rule of "letterbox" Johnson that wearing face coverings became compulsory.
But what happened to the SEAL teams and all that bollocks? Perhaps the leaders of the US & UK just had a mature conversation without fretting about who-said-what like kids in a playground?
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.
Yes it can, the government is absolutely able to force universities to only accept exam based students as domestic students will be sitting exams to get in.
Universities set their own admissions policies.
The government sets funding criteria and can insist on funded places (UK based students) meeting a minimum criteria.
The government has never set criteria that exams are necessary. Universities have always accepted people without exams, my best friend at university was a mature student (albeit only 22 in our first year) who got his place in university on the back of an essay and some other work he had done and no exams. That isn't unusual for mature students. Are you suggesting that mature students should be barred from going to university without sitting some exams first?
This is the problem with easy solutions, they don't work when they run into reality.
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 mate, it was a great article. I did put a comment in but far too late.
Law is like party politics; we would like to think that there is a sweetness and light alternative from which law is an unpleasant aberration. But the alternatives are violence and intimidation.
Lawyers and law are quite properly open to criticism. Among them might be that the law, like the Ritz Hotel, is open to all. That there is far too much law and much of it is unnecessarily complicated. (Sentencing is a well known example.) That it is too expensive. That legal aid is randomly distributed, denying ordinary justice to a lot of ordinary people while funding some pretty exotic stuff. That if you want the most able and expensive of lawyers to represent you the trick is to commit really major serious crime like multiple murder. That commercial/corporate law pays more than safeguarding of children law.
Well they do share a slogan at least, that's something. Despite liking alliteration something about it just doesn't work for me though.
But they DON'T share priorities.
Johnson tweeted on Saturday the UK & US would work together on "shared priorities from climate change to trade & security" Now he's admitting they talked about " shared priorities from climate change top promoting democracy and building back better"
What's happened to trade? It's not a shared priority.
Johnson's being thrown under a bus on trade, the day after his fantasy about a border in the Irish Sea was rejected,
BINO has won. Whatever figleaf gets invented, we're not leaving the Single Market at the end of next month.
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.
I didn't like the way Florida was going and baled out about 1am. Had I kept my nerve (or fallen asleep) I'd have been ok but the risk was too big. No regrets. I don't mind taking a managable hit to avoid being completely blown away. It was looking very grim at one point.
It was similar last nite. I took what I thought was mug money by backing Biden at 1.06 only to see the price drift rapidly through the small hours to 1.15 at which point I feared something sinister was afoot and again I baled out. Stakes were much lower this time round but even so I didn't want to blow a grand on a situation I couldn't understand and wasn't going to win me that much anyway. Biden is back into 1.09 now - still way too big, but exhaustion and a fear that things may not be quite as they appear are keeping me out of the ring for the moment.
You can be a Catholic and a Jewish Tory if you are also a monarchist and Unionist, you cannot however be an atheist, who wants to abolish the monarchy and break up the Union as you do and still be a Tory
The more I read comments like this, the more it becomes obvious I can never be a Tory.
The behaviour of the Bluekippers are persuading me that Scotland and N Ireland are best served by leaving the UK.
BTW - I have the atheist bit all sorted out
As for the monarchy - a historic relic that still poisons English society by providing a framework for the wretched "Class system" and its associated attitudes. It needs to go.
Yes, you're yet another one who wants to blow up the whole ship because you've been driven mad by Brexit, and sense it will drive mad in turn those who advocated for it.
I remember when you were posting on here regularly as a "Better Off Out" poster.
Your arguments and style were embarrassing then and are no less embarrassing now.
The problem was that in my BOO days I had not really considered the problem and why would I? There was no prospect of leaving at that time.
Then everything changed.
When I looked at the argument in depth, it became clear that BOO was not going to work well and I changed my position (as per the quote from J M Keynes).
I have not been driven mad by Brexit - why should I? I am immune to Brexit thanks to my Irish citizenship. It is the Leavers who are going mad because their pet project is not going to plan. They are the ones running around blaming anyone and anything.
The trouble is Beverley there is never any nuance or measuredness to your argument: you've gone from vociferously venting well to my right flank and then you quickly skedaddled after the vote to the other side and now are vociferously venting at me from the left-flank whilst undergoing a complete values shift in the process. There's no consistency at all except the use of a lot of smilies, and throwing barbs at the fundamentals of the British state.
Why would I take that seriously or want to engage with it?
The only major change I made in my position has been over shifting away from BOO. The other change you are referring to (skedaddling) to the left is the resultant of a minor shift leftward by me and a massive lurch to the right by the Conservatives.
As for the smileys, we have a comedian for PM. The only thing left to do is laugh.
Ok, but you must know that arguing for the break-up of the UK (or at least being agnostic about it) and for the abolition of monarchy and dismissive of other British institutions is bound to provoke a strong response.
If I need to be more tolerant of those who have multi-layered identities (and I do) then perhaps you need to be more so of the British one, because these are the building blocks that keep everything else stable.
Boris and Joe Biden sharing an early phone call must have added to Trump's dark mood and of course for the President elect it is a very useful endorsement of his forthcoming presidency
a) a genuine slip-up, b) an "accident on purpose" by somebody not enamoured of Boris, c) some kind of "walking up Downing Street accidentally flashing a document" manoeuvre?
Boris and Joe Biden sharing an early phone call must have added to Trump's dark mood and of course for the President elect it is a very useful endorsement of his forthcoming presidency
Well they do share a slogan at least, that's something. Despite liking alliteration something about it just doesn't work for me though.
But they DON'T share priorities.
Johnson tweeted on Saturday the UK & US would work together on "shared priorities from climate change to trade & security" Now he's admitting they talked about " shared priorities from climate change top promoting democracy and building back better"
What's happened to trade? It's not a shared priority.
Johnson's being thrown under a bus on trade, the day after his fantasy about a border in the Irish Sea was rejected,
BINO has won. Whatever figleaf gets invented, we're not leaving the Single Market at the end of next month.
I would be very surprised if your last sentence is true on the 1st January 2021
Boris and Joe Biden sharing an early phone call must have added to Trump's dark mood and of course for the President elect it is a very useful endorsement of his forthcoming presidency
Yes, I actually think this is something that will have played into Boris' hands a bit. Biden getting a call with Boris in early and getting an ex-Trump ally's full and resounding endorsement is helpful. I'm sure Netanyahu will also be pretty high up the list.
(1) The UK is the first European country Biden called, or took. Almost no-one expected that. (2) It shouldn't really matter much anyway; I'd far prefer to have the best call rather than the first call. (3) Realpolitik - it might be Biden thought talking to Johnson now would help convince Trump he's now internationally isolated, and to concede. (4) If Trump does not, the UK is a big intelligence, defence and security ally of the USA and you can see why Biden might need its help and co-operation in the most serious situation. (5) The UK is the key decision-maker right now in the Brexit deal (in that it'll decide whether to have one or not) which Biden is very much interested in to stabilise UK, Ireland and the EU. Once sorted, it's one problem off Biden's list and the UK is a reliable ally again.
Boris and Joe Biden sharing an early phone call must have added to Trump's dark mood and of course for the President elect it is a very useful endorsement of his forthcoming presidency
Yes, I actually think this is something that will have played into Boris' hands a bit. Biden getting a call with Boris in early and getting an ex-Trump ally's full and resounding endorsement is helpful. I'm sure Netanyahu will also be pretty high up the list.
Boris and Joe Biden sharing an early phone call must have added to Trump's dark mood and of course for the President elect it is a very useful endorsement of his forthcoming presidency
Yes, I actually think this is something that will have played into Boris' hands a bit. Biden getting a call with Boris in early and getting an ex-Trump ally's full and resounding endorsement is helpful. I'm sure Netanyahu will also be pretty high up the list.
Boris and Joe Biden sharing an early phone call must have added to Trump's dark mood and of course for the President elect it is a very useful endorsement of his forthcoming presidency
But what happened to the SEAL teams and all that bollocks? Perhaps the leaders of the US & UK just had a mature conversation without fretting about who-said-what like kids in a playground?
Um, the Seal team bit was a joke, and no one ever suggested that Biden's dislike of Johnson would manifest itself in a refusal to speak to him on the phone.
You seem to subscribe to "harmless little bit of racism" theory. I don't want to into the merits of that theory, I am just saying I am pretty certain that Joe Biden does not subscribe to it, never mind Kamala. As noted by another poster, Johnson is reduced to claiming climate change as top shared interest, but that's like being resolutely in favour of motherhood and apple pie.
Boris and Joe Biden sharing an early phone call must have added to Trump's dark mood and of course for the President elect it is a very useful endorsement of his forthcoming presidency
(1) The UK is the first European country Biden called, or took. Almost no-one expected that. (2) It shouldn't really matter much anyway; I'd far prefer to have the best call rather than the first call. (3) Realpolitik - it might be Biden thought talking to Johnson now would help convince Trump he's now internationally isolated, and to concede. (4) If Trump does not, the UK is a big intelligence, defence and security ally of the USA and you can see why Biden might need its help and co-operation in the most serious situation. (5) The UK is the key decision-maker right now in the Brexit deal (in that it'll decide whether to have one or not) which Biden is very much interested in to stabilise UK, Ireland and the EU. Once sorted, it's one problem off Biden's list and the UK is a reliable ally again.
So, this makes sense.
Quite agree. When you're not slagging of those you imagine to be full of wokeness, you can be so sensible!
Boris and Joe Biden sharing an early phone call must have added to Trump's dark mood and of course for the President elect it is a very useful endorsement of his forthcoming presidency
a) a genuine slip-up, b) an "accident on purpose" by somebody not enamoured of Boris, c) some kind of "walking up Downing Street accidentally flashing a document" manoeuvre?
On The Crown, I don't know why they don't keep casting very good but unknown talented actors. Hell knows they need it.
Claire Foy, Emma Corrin, Vanessa Kirby and Josh O'Connor were superb as HMQ, Diana, Margaret and Charles. Also Matt and Tobias Menzies nailed Philip, and Alex Jennings and Lia Williams as Edward VIII and Wallis too. The PM casting has been almost entirely superb too.
But, Olivia Coleman just plays variations of Oliva Coleman and Helena Bonham-Carter looks *exactly* like Helena Bonham-Carter in everything she plays in. Miscast.
I'm not sure about Gillian Anderson either, but the die is now cast.
But what happened to the SEAL teams and all that bollocks? Perhaps the leaders of the US & UK just had a mature conversation without fretting about who-said-what like kids in a playground?
Um, the Seal team bit was a joke, and no one ever suggested that Biden's dislike of Johnson would manifest itself in a refusal to speak to him on the phone.
You seem to subscribe to "harmless little bit of racism" theory. I don't want to into the merits of that theory, I am just saying I am pretty certain that Joe Biden does not subscribe to it, never mind Kamala. As noted by another poster, Johnson is reduced to claiming climate change as top shared interest, but that's like being resolutely in favour of motherhood and apple pie.
Joe's four priorities as listed on his transition website are Covid, economic recovery, racial equality, and climate change. Boris's list: climate change, promoting democracy, building back better from the pandemic. Dom loves the rule of threes, so he squished Joe's 1 and 2 into "building back better from the pandemic"...but for reasons of not pushing his luck "racial equality" got changed to the meaning-light "promoting apple pie democracy".
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.
I didn't like the way Florida was going and baled out about 1am. Had I kept my nerve (or fallen asleep) I'd have been ok but the risk was too big. No regrets. I don't mind taking a managable hit to avoid being completely blown away. It was looking very grim at one point.
It was similar last nite. I took what I thought was mug money by backing Biden at 1.06 only to see the price drift rapidly through the small hours to 1.15 at which point I feared something sinister was afoot and again I baled out. Stakes were much lower this time round but even so I didn't want to blow a grand on a situation I couldn't understand and wasn't going to win me that much anyway. Biden is back into 1.09 now - still way too big, but exhaustion and a fear that things may not be quite as they appear are keeping me out of the ring for the moment.
Right. Fair enough. Yes it's best to close a position if you think it might be heading into nausea territory. Gosh so it went as big as 1.15 then - amazing.
(1) The UK is the first European country Biden called, or took. Almost no-one expected that. (2) It shouldn't really matter much anyway; I'd far prefer to have the best call rather than the first call. (3) Realpolitik - it might be Biden thought talking to Johnson now would help convince Trump he's now internationally isolated, and to concede. (4) If Trump does not, the UK is a big intelligence, defence and security ally of the USA and you can see why Biden might need its help and co-operation in the most serious situation. (5) The UK is the key decision-maker right now in the Brexit deal (in that it'll decide whether to have one or not) which Biden is very much interested in to stabilise UK, Ireland and the EU. Once sorted, it's one problem off Biden's list and the UK is a reliable ally again.
So, this makes sense.
Yes, ultimately the US and UK have a lot of shared interests regardless of who is in charge and both are fairly reliable security and intelligence allies, something that can't be said for European countries and the US or the UK and European countries. If anything the UK and US have never been individually as weak as this in geopolitical terms, now is the time for the US and UK to hold the special relationship together and make it the bedrock of a western alliance against China and other aggressor states.
You can be a Catholic and a Jewish Tory if you are also a monarchist and Unionist, you cannot however be an atheist, who wants to abolish the monarchy and break up the Union as you do and still be a Tory
The more I read comments like this, the more it becomes obvious I can never be a Tory.
The behaviour of the Bluekippers are persuading me that Scotland and N Ireland are best served by leaving the UK.
BTW - I have the atheist bit all sorted out
As for the monarchy - a historic relic that still poisons English society by providing a framework for the wretched "Class system" and its associated attitudes. It needs to go.
Yes, you're yet another one who wants to blow up the whole ship because you've been driven mad by Brexit, and sense it will drive mad in turn those who advocated for it.
I remember when you were posting on here regularly as a "Better Off Out" poster.
Your arguments and style were embarrassing then and are no less embarrassing now.
The problem was that in my BOO days I had not really considered the problem and why would I? There was no prospect of leaving at that time.
Then everything changed.
When I looked at the argument in depth, it became clear that BOO was not going to work well and I changed my position (as per the quote from J M Keynes).
I have not been driven mad by Brexit - why should I? I am immune to Brexit thanks to my Irish citizenship. It is the Leavers who are going mad because their pet project is not going to plan. They are the ones running around blaming anyone and anything.
The trouble is Beverley there is never any nuance or measuredness to your argument: you've gone from vociferously venting well to my right flank and then you quickly skedaddled after the vote to the other side and now are vociferously venting at me from the left-flank whilst undergoing a complete values shift in the process. There's no consistency at all except the use of a lot of smilies, and throwing barbs at the fundamentals of the British state.
Why would I take that seriously or want to engage with it?
The only major change I made in my position has been over shifting away from BOO. The other change you are referring to (skedaddling) to the left is the resultant of a minor shift leftward by me and a massive lurch to the right by the Conservatives.
As for the smileys, we have a comedian for PM. The only thing left to do is laugh.
Ok, but you must know that arguing for the break-up of the UK (or at least being agnostic about it) and for the abolition of monarchy and dismissive of other British institutions is bound to provoke a strong response.
If I need to be more tolerant of those who have multi-layered identities (and I do) then perhaps you need to be more so of the British one, because these are the building blocks that keep everything else stable.
My problem is that my sense of Britishness has been massively diminished, but not by Brexit. It has been caused by the UKIP sympathisers that infest a lot of the Conservative Party (think ERG plus some of the new Boris-loyal intake).
I cannot interchange Britishness with Englishness like many of them seem to do because I am not English. In fact their pronouncements and actions make me value the establishment less and less to the point that I feel I have a much better understanding of the Scottish viewpoint. I certainly have a lot more sympathy with the Scots and to a certain extent Brexit validates Scottish Indy - if it is valid for Britain to "Take Back Control" then it is valid for Scotland too.
The truth of the matter is that if the govt had been competent in organising itself and its affairs over the last few years then I would be less adrift. But the core of the problem is that there has been so much incompetence, stupidity and posturing that I would be embarrassed to whip out a British passport when aboard. It is hard to be a citizen of a laughing stock.
(1) The UK is the first European country Biden called, or took. Almost no-one expected that. (2) It shouldn't really matter much anyway; I'd far prefer to have the best call rather than the first call. (3) Realpolitik - it might be Biden thought talking to Johnson now would help convince Trump he's now internationally isolated, and to concede. (4) If Trump does not, the UK is a big intelligence, defence and security ally of the USA and you can see why Biden might need its help and co-operation in the most serious situation. (5) The UK is the key decision-maker right now in the Brexit deal (in that it'll decide whether to have one or not) which Biden is very much interested in to stabilise UK, Ireland and the EU. Once sorted, it's one problem off Biden's list and the UK is a reliable ally again.
So, this makes sense.
Quite agree. When you're not slagging of those you imagine to be full of wokeness, you can be so sensible!
There's an increasing level of criticism out there now about Wokeness, including in mainstream newspapers like The Times - particularly from minority journalists who find it patronising and unnecessarily divisive. I don't know why more people don't see this. Possibly people fear criticising it in any form is too high risk because it usually brings the "ist" stick down on them. But, we are starting to talk about it.. which is good.
Otherwise, I'm fine unless somebody says something that pisses me off ;-)
I know this is screaming into the void but fuck the GOP and their desperate recounts.
Yes I have money on Wisconsin. Yes I knew the risk. No I can't cash out because for reasons known only to Trump rampers the current odds are 1.10. Its a fucking 20k vote lead. And the fuckers won't even begin to count until the 18th. And that's reliant upon Trump grifting another $2millon.
If I had balls half my current account would be on this.
Had he said "footballers of colour" would that have been acceptable? I mean, we've imported BLM from America, why not that phrase too?
Seems like an apology rather than resignation would have been sufficient. People mess up terminology without it meaning the worse, I would most would accept that, else they are suggesting terminological slip ups are on equal footing with far worse behaviour.
At least the report actually says what he said - sometimes a report will say someone said something offensive, but not what it was so it can be hard to judge how offended everyone should be.
(1) The UK is the first European country Biden called, or took. Almost no-one expected that. (2) It shouldn't really matter much anyway; I'd far prefer to have the best call rather than the first call. (3) Realpolitik - it might be Biden thought talking to Johnson now would help convince Trump he's now internationally isolated, and to concede. (4) If Trump does not, the UK is a big intelligence, defence and security ally of the USA and you can see why Biden might need its help and co-operation in the most serious situation. (5) The UK is the key decision-maker right now in the Brexit deal (in that it'll decide whether to have one or not) which Biden is very much interested in to stabilise UK, Ireland and the EU. Once sorted, it's one problem off Biden's list and the UK is a reliable ally again.
So, this makes sense.
Quite agree. When you're not slagging of those you imagine to be full of wokeness, you can be so sensible!
There's an increasing level of criticism out there now about Wokeness, including in mainstream newspapers like The Times - particularly from minority journalists who find it patronising and unnecessarily divisive. I don't know why more people don't see this. Possibly people fear criticising it in any form is too high risk because it usually brings the "ist" stick down on them. But, we are starting to talk about it.. which is good.
Otherwise, I'm fine unless somebody says something that pisses me off ;-)
Oh shit, I'm sorry, I really didn't mean to get you started again......
But what happened to the SEAL teams and all that bollocks? Perhaps the leaders of the US & UK just had a mature conversation without fretting about who-said-what like kids in a playground?
Um, the Seal team bit was a joke, and no one ever suggested that Biden's dislike of Johnson would manifest itself in a refusal to speak to him on the phone.
You seem to subscribe to "harmless little bit of racism" theory. I don't want to into the merits of that theory, I am just saying I am pretty certain that Joe Biden does not subscribe to it, never mind Kamala. As noted by another poster, Johnson is reduced to claiming climate change as top shared interest, but that's like being resolutely in favour of motherhood and apple pie.
Well, it seems to bother you an awful lot more than it does Biden himself. If you're familiar with the tone of political discourse in the US, what Boris said about Obama doesn't even rank in the top 100 disobliging comments made about him. Despite any superficial similarities, our dear leader is like the Mahatma compared to Trump and his Republican adherents.
'Coloured' being beyond the pale, yet 'of colour' being the almost required current term is probably the sort of thing that caused a small drift amongst black men from the Democrats to the GOP in the USA elections tbh.
(1) The UK is the first European country Biden called, or took. Almost no-one expected that. (2) It shouldn't really matter much anyway; I'd far prefer to have the best call rather than the first call. (3) Realpolitik - it might be Biden thought talking to Johnson now would help convince Trump he's now internationally isolated, and to concede. (4) If Trump does not, the UK is a big intelligence, defence and security ally of the USA and you can see why Biden might need its help and co-operation in the most serious situation. (5) The UK is the key decision-maker right now in the Brexit deal (in that it'll decide whether to have one or not) which Biden is very much interested in to stabilise UK, Ireland and the EU. Once sorted, it's one problem off Biden's list and the UK is a reliable ally again.
So, this makes sense.
Biden makes a point of seeking common ground. I imagine that unlike Trump personal animosity or grudge doesn't feature much in his political agenda.
In international relations, you don't get to choose who represents other parties. You just have to get on and deal with who they have as their representative.
There is a bit of cultural cringe about wanting to speak first to a new POTUS, as with the infamous Brown Obama meeting. It doesn't matter much, but traditionally first is always Canada for fairly obvious reasons.
Just looked in. Somewhat bad tempered thread this, although it also seems the moment Disgusted of Epping Forest finally jumped a shark, a school of porpoises and a cruise liner.
On exams, a few thoughts:
1) Covid is rampaging through schools at the moment, and not just among pupils. The number of staff off is skyrocketing. Between these two, it seems eminently plausible that the average exam candidate will lose somewhere around 30% of direct contact time this year, ignoring last year’s disruption. That’s even assuming we can keep schools open at all, which is no better than an even money shot.
2) Although there is the realistic possibility of a vaccine, there is no realistic possibility of a mass vaccine in time to make a meaningful difference to the numbers off or the loss of learning time among exam cohorts.
3) The later the government leaves it, the more difficult, it will be to cancel and put a workable substitute in place. This is why I was so very against the more or less ad hoc decision to cancel exams with no thought given to the problems that would cause. However, now it is clear we’re going to have exactly the same problems only with far less curriculum time behind them, it’s time to give some thought to what to do instead.
4) Schools in England at least are now holding series of major mocks, and sending rolling data to exam boards. However, without meaningful QA the same problems as last time will be evident. (It will probably be present with it as well, given neither the exam boards nor OFQUAL could have identified Hitler as a racist, but at least it gives the illusion of rigour.) moreover, these exams are themselves being severely disrupted.
5) Therefore, the sensible option is what Wales has done, and the earlier this call is made the better for everyone. It should be internally marked and externally moderated coursework in all subjects I personally do not see how a decision can be postponed beyond the second week in January. However, as this means Cummings will have to admit his entire beloved education strategy has not merely utterly failed but actually blown up in his stupid smug face, I do not expect the call to be made before that.
I like it that Joe includes racial equality as one of his top priorities. He's got guts, given that Trump won 59% of the white vote (source: NYT) whereas he himself only scored 39%. Power to his elbow.
(1) The UK is the first European country Biden called, or took. Almost no-one expected that. (2) It shouldn't really matter much anyway; I'd far prefer to have the best call rather than the first call. (3) Realpolitik - it might be Biden thought talking to Johnson now would help convince Trump he's now internationally isolated, and to concede. (4) If Trump does not, the UK is a big intelligence, defence and security ally of the USA and you can see why Biden might need its help and co-operation in the most serious situation. (5) The UK is the key decision-maker right now in the Brexit deal (in that it'll decide whether to have one or not) which Biden is very much interested in to stabilise UK, Ireland and the EU. Once sorted, it's one problem off Biden's list and the UK is a reliable ally again.
So, this makes sense.
Yes, ultimately the US and UK have a lot of shared interests regardless of who is in charge and both are fairly reliable security and intelligence allies, something that can't be said for European countries and the US or the UK and European countries. If anything the UK and US have never been individually as weak as this in geopolitical terms, now is the time for the US and UK to hold the special relationship together and make it the bedrock of a western alliance against China and other aggressor states.
I think that's right. I think we think we're a joke of a country sometimes but I think we can both overestimate our influence & power *and* significantly underestimate it at the same time, if that makes sense.
The UK and US still set the tone for a lot of Western leadership.
You can be a Catholic and a Jewish Tory if you are also a monarchist and Unionist, you cannot however be an atheist, who wants to abolish the monarchy and break up the Union as you do and still be a Tory
The more I read comments like this, the more it becomes obvious I can never be a Tory.
The behaviour of the Bluekippers are persuading me that Scotland and N Ireland are best served by leaving the UK.
BTW - I have the atheist bit all sorted out
As for the monarchy - a historic relic that still poisons English society by providing a framework for the wretched "Class system" and its associated attitudes. It needs to go.
Yes, you're yet another one who wants to blow up the whole ship because you've been driven mad by Brexit, and sense it will drive mad in turn those who advocated for it.
I remember when you were posting on here regularly as a "Better Off Out" poster.
Your arguments and style were embarrassing then and are no less embarrassing now.
The problem was that in my BOO days I had not really considered the problem and why would I? There was no prospect of leaving at that time.
Then everything changed.
When I looked at the argument in depth, it became clear that BOO was not going to work well and I changed my position (as per the quote from J M Keynes).
I have not been driven mad by Brexit - why should I? I am immune to Brexit thanks to my Irish citizenship. It is the Leavers who are going mad because their pet project is not going to plan. They are the ones running around blaming anyone and anything.
The trouble is Beverley there is never any nuance or measuredness to your argument: you've gone from vociferously venting well to my right flank and then you quickly skedaddled after the vote to the other side and now are vociferously venting at me from the left-flank whilst undergoing a complete values shift in the process. There's no consistency at all except the use of a lot of smilies, and throwing barbs at the fundamentals of the British state.
Why would I take that seriously or want to engage with it?
The only major change I made in my position has been over shifting away from BOO. The other change you are referring to (skedaddling) to the left is the resultant of a minor shift leftward by me and a massive lurch to the right by the Conservatives.
As for the smileys, we have a comedian for PM. The only thing left to do is laugh.
Ok, but you must know that arguing for the break-up of the UK (or at least being agnostic about it) and for the abolition of monarchy and dismissive of other British institutions is bound to provoke a strong response.
If I need to be more tolerant of those who have multi-layered identities (and I do) then perhaps you need to be more so of the British one, because these are the building blocks that keep everything else stable.
My problem is that my sense of Britishness has been massively diminished, but not by Brexit. It has been caused by the UKIP sympathisers that infest a lot of the Conservative Party (think ERG plus some of the new Boris-loyal intake).
I cannot interchange Britishness with Englishness like many of them seem to do because I am not English. In fact their pronouncements and actions make me value the establishment less and less to the point that I feel I have a much better understanding of the Scottish viewpoint. I certainly have a lot more sympathy with the Scots and to a certain extent Brexit validates Scottish Indy - if it is valid for Britain to "Take Back Control" then it is valid for Scotland too.
The truth of the matter is that if the govt had been competent in organising itself and its affairs over the last few years then I would be less adrift. But the core of the problem is that there has been so much incompetence, stupidity and posturing that I would be embarrassed to whip out a British passport when aboard. It is hard to be a citizen of a laughing stock.
Thanks. That makes more sense, and I understand that.
I've always wanted a sensible rational deal that we can coalesce around (notwithstanding how we voted in the EURef) and that we can all then move on from, and build on. And I don't want to be laughed at either.
I don't want to see you go by the way. Hope you decide to stay.
Thinking... now might be the time to buy the FTSE100/250.
All my research is telling me the UK is cheap, and it should jump by 4-6% once a Brexit deal is announced.
I'm going to move a couple of stacks across in my Vanguard S&S ISA.
I think selectivity is needed. Much of the FTSE100 is miners and fossil fuels earning in dollars, and often other companies where overseas earnings dominate. The 250 is more British, but I would still be wary of some sectors. Covid-19 ain't over yet, and even a Brexit Deal will inhibit trade, the only question left is how much and where the new barriers are.
That said, my UK equities are up about 15% on the month, so looking pretty good. Bailing out in Feb and selective repurchasing in April/May has been mostly pretty successful.
I'm actually concerned for the man's mental wellbeing. His 'crusade' started out as being against wokeism, so where's all this weird WEF globalist takeover stuff now coming from? Is a full QAnon alignment imminent?
'Coloured' being beyond the pale, yet 'of colour' being the almost required current term is probably the sort of thing that caused a small drift amongst black men from the Democrats to the GOP in the USA elections tbh.
So.. when I go on about 'Woke' this is the sort of thing I mean.
We need to distinguish between actual racism and bigotry and those who've simply slipped their tongues on the latest lingo.
I think some black men get pissed off that all the focus is on the latter, with all the moral self-righteous that goes with it, whilst the former gets forgotten about.
I'm actually concerned for the man's mental wellbeing. His 'crusade' started out as being against wokeism, so where's all this weird WEF globalist takeover stuff now coming from? Is a full QAnon alignment imminent?
I don't know, but he's giving the campaign for common-sense rather than Wokeness a bad name.
I think his new Twitter fan club has gone to his head.
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.
1 Your bullshit explanation that he was defending Jack Straw is laughable. My interpretation of "entitled to" is at least plausible. 2. Again, try replacing Jews with Moslems it might help you with your blindspot about Islamophobia. "not all Jews wear the kippah, therefore banning it isn't antisemitic". You can surely see how absurd that argument is.
1. No it is not. Mine is what was literally written, yours is the ravings of a madman. 2. No it does not.
The burqa is not remotely like the kippah. The hijab is closer to the kippah, the burqa has no direct equivalent I can think of in decent society. The closest I can think of to the burqa in dehumanising the person wearing it is the KKK garb.
Go back and read what Johnson said. He is obviously saying he would ask women to remove their veils. NOT defending Straw as you absurdly claim.
If you like replace the word Burqa with veil if it helps you understand simple logic.
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.
1 Your bullshit explanation that he was defending Jack Straw is laughable. My interpretation of "entitled to" is at least plausible. 2. Again, try replacing Jews with Moslems it might help you with your blindspot about Islamophobia. "not all Jews wear the kippah, therefore banning it isn't antisemitic". You can surely see how absurd that argument is.
1. No it is not. Mine is what was literally written, yours is the ravings of a madman. 2. No it does not.
The burqa is not remotely like the kippah. The hijab is closer to the kippah, the burqa has no direct equivalent I can think of in decent society. The closest I can think of to the burqa in dehumanising the person wearing it is the KKK garb.
The most charitable explanation I can come up with is that you object to certain types of religious coverings because you have a nose fetish and demand that nobody is allowed to cover theirs.
I'm actually concerned for the man's mental wellbeing. His 'crusade' started out as being against wokeism, so where's all this weird WEF globalist takeover stuff now coming from? Is a full QAnon alignment imminent?
Comments
2. Again, try replacing Jews with Moslems it might help you with your blindspot about Islamophobia. "not all Jews wear the kippah, therefore banning it isn't antisemitic". You can surely see how absurd that argument is.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1326206159368450055
Dick wants to kill all the lawyers so that the populist rebels of Cade's rebellion can loot the city without fear of the rule of law. He is not the hero of the play, but rather a villain.
Though I pity those leaders who only get a text message.
I tihnk he had a cold.
2. No it does not.
The burqa is not remotely like the kippah. The hijab is closer to the kippah, the burqa has no direct equivalent I can think of in decent society. The closest I can think of to the burqa in dehumanising the person wearing it is the KKK garb.
Entertaining read on the scramble to get a phone call with Trump:
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1326207983546667010?s=20
As for the smileys, we have a comedian for PM. The only thing left to do is laugh.
😷
This is the problem with easy solutions, they don't work when they run into reality.
I apologise. I really appreciate them!
Lawyers and law are quite properly open to criticism. Among them might be that the law, like the Ritz Hotel, is open to all. That there is far too much law and much of it is unnecessarily complicated. (Sentencing is a well known example.) That it is too expensive. That legal aid is randomly distributed, denying ordinary justice to a lot of ordinary people while funding some pretty exotic stuff. That if you want the most able and expensive of lawyers to represent you the trick is to commit really major serious crime like multiple murder. That commercial/corporate law pays more than safeguarding of children law.
Johnson tweeted on Saturday the UK & US would work together on "shared priorities from climate change to trade & security" Now he's admitting they talked about " shared priorities from climate change top promoting democracy and building back better"
What's happened to trade? It's not a shared priority.
Johnson's being thrown under a bus on trade, the day after his fantasy about a border in the Irish Sea was rejected,
BINO has won. Whatever figleaf gets invented, we're not leaving the Single Market at the end of next month.
It was similar last nite. I took what I thought was mug money by backing Biden at 1.06 only to see the price drift rapidly through the small hours to 1.15 at which point I feared something sinister was afoot and again I baled out. Stakes were much lower this time round but even so I didn't want to blow a grand on a situation I couldn't understand and wasn't going to win me that much anyway. Biden is back into 1.09 now - still way too big, but exhaustion and a fear that things may not be quite as they appear are keeping me out of the ring for the moment.
If I need to be more tolerant of those who have multi-layered identities (and I do) then perhaps you need to be more so of the British one, because these are the building blocks that keep everything else stable.
a) a genuine slip-up,
b) an "accident on purpose" by somebody not enamoured of Boris,
c) some kind of "walking up Downing Street accidentally flashing a document" manoeuvre?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1326211507982659590
(1) The UK is the first European country Biden called, or took. Almost no-one expected that.
(2) It shouldn't really matter much anyway; I'd far prefer to have the best call rather than the first call.
(3) Realpolitik - it might be Biden thought talking to Johnson now would help convince Trump he's now internationally isolated, and to concede.
(4) If Trump does not, the UK is a big intelligence, defence and security ally of the USA and you can see why Biden might need its help and co-operation in the most serious situation.
(5) The UK is the key decision-maker right now in the Brexit deal (in that it'll decide whether to have one or not) which Biden is very much interested in to stabilise UK, Ireland and the EU. Once sorted, it's one problem off Biden's list and the UK is a reliable ally again.
So, this makes sense.
You seem to subscribe to "harmless little bit of racism" theory. I don't want to into the merits of that theory, I am just saying I am pretty certain that Joe Biden does not subscribe to it, never mind Kamala. As noted by another poster, Johnson is reduced to claiming climate change as top shared interest, but that's like being resolutely in favour of motherhood and apple pie.
Not sure this is what he or they had in mind.
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1326210385532379136?s=20
Hard to say as his spelling's so poor.
Claire Foy, Emma Corrin, Vanessa Kirby and Josh O'Connor were superb as HMQ, Diana, Margaret and Charles. Also Matt and Tobias Menzies nailed Philip, and Alex Jennings and Lia Williams as Edward VIII and Wallis too. The PM casting has been almost entirely superb too.
But, Olivia Coleman just plays variations of Oliva Coleman and Helena Bonham-Carter looks *exactly* like Helena Bonham-Carter in everything she plays in. Miscast.
I'm not sure about Gillian Anderson either, but the die is now cast.
I cannot interchange Britishness with Englishness like many of them seem to do because I am not English. In fact their pronouncements and actions make me value the establishment less and less to the point that I feel I have a much better understanding of the Scottish viewpoint. I certainly have a lot more sympathy with the Scots and to a certain extent Brexit validates Scottish Indy - if it is valid for Britain to "Take Back Control" then it is valid for Scotland too.
The truth of the matter is that if the govt had been competent in organising itself and its affairs over the last few years then I would be less adrift. But the core of the problem is that there has been so much incompetence, stupidity and posturing that I would be embarrassed to whip out a British passport when aboard. It is hard to be a citizen of a laughing stock.
https://twitter.com/JoeTwyman/status/1326216233084198912?s=20
Otherwise, I'm fine unless somebody says something that pisses me off ;-)
Yes I have money on Wisconsin. Yes I knew the risk. No I can't cash out because for reasons known only to Trump rampers the current odds are 1.10. Its a fucking 20k vote lead. And the fuckers won't even begin to count until the 18th. And that's reliant upon Trump grifting another $2millon.
If I had balls half my current account would be on this.
At least the report actually says what he said - sometimes a report will say someone said something offensive, but not what it was so it can be hard to judge how offended everyone should be.
https://twitter.com/LozzaFox/status/1326216949823627265?s=20
In international relations, you don't get to choose who represents other parties. You just have to get on and deal with who they have as their representative.
There is a bit of cultural cringe about wanting to speak first to a new POTUS, as with the infamous Brown Obama meeting. It doesn't matter much, but traditionally first is always Canada for fairly obvious reasons.
All my research is telling me the UK is cheap, and it should jump by 4-6% once a Brexit deal is announced.
I'm going to move a couple of stacks across in my Vanguard S&S ISA.
On exams, a few thoughts:
1) Covid is rampaging through schools at the moment, and not just among pupils. The number of staff off is skyrocketing. Between these two, it seems eminently plausible that the average exam candidate will lose somewhere around 30% of direct contact time this year, ignoring last year’s disruption. That’s even assuming we can keep schools open at all, which is no better than an even money shot.
2) Although there is the realistic possibility of a vaccine, there is no realistic possibility of a mass vaccine in time to make a meaningful difference to the numbers off or the loss of learning time among exam cohorts.
3) The later the government leaves it, the more difficult, it will be to cancel and put a workable substitute in place. This is why I was so very against the more or less ad hoc decision to cancel exams with no thought given to the problems that would cause. However, now it is clear we’re going to have exactly the same problems only with far less curriculum time behind them, it’s time to give some thought to what to do instead.
4) Schools in England at least are now holding series of major mocks, and sending rolling data to exam boards. However, without meaningful QA the same problems as last time will be evident. (It will probably be present with it as well, given neither the exam boards nor OFQUAL could have identified Hitler as a racist, but at least it gives the illusion of rigour.) moreover, these exams are themselves being severely disrupted.
5) Therefore, the sensible option is what Wales has done, and the earlier this call is made the better for everyone. It should be internally marked and externally moderated coursework in all subjects I personally do not see how a decision can be postponed beyond the second week in January. However, as this means Cummings will have to admit his entire beloved education strategy has not merely utterly failed but actually blown up in his stupid smug face, I do not expect the call to be made before that.
The UK and US still set the tone for a lot of Western leadership.
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1326210080484827140?s=19
I am really warming to Covid fucking the samples. Dems take Covid seriously, stay home more, much more likely to answer a poll.
I've always wanted a sensible rational deal that we can coalesce around (notwithstanding how we voted in the EURef) and that we can all then move on from, and build on. And I don't want to be laughed at either.
I don't want to see you go by the way. Hope you decide to stay.
That said, my UK equities are up about 15% on the month, so looking pretty good. Bailing out in Feb and selective repurchasing in April/May has been mostly pretty successful.
https://twitter.com/EdLlewellynFCDO/status/1326220175826411520
We need to distinguish between actual racism and bigotry and those who've simply slipped their tongues on the latest lingo.
I think some black men get pissed off that all the focus is on the latter, with all the moral self-righteous that goes with it, whilst the former gets forgotten about.
I think his new Twitter fan club has gone to his head.
If you like replace the word Burqa with veil if it helps you understand simple logic.
Flag Tourettes, I just can't take that sort of person seriously.