Interesting that Suzanne Moore in her interview with Unherd made a comparison about he difference between working at the Mail (as a token leftie) and the Guardian.
One was a place where many journalists said don't agree with you on a political level, but you absolutely have the write what you feel, and the management made clear that was her role at the newspaper and would be back the same as the right leaning ones and the other was the Guardian, where she makes it sound very much like they have a culture similar to The New York Times as described by people like Bari Weiss, dissent from particular orthodoxy will not be tolerated.
The problem with Theo Bertram's point is that loads of the Labour members who rated him have quit the party! So to compare 71% and 46%, and imply the difference is people who have changed their their view is not really fair
The problem with Theo Bertram's point is that loads of the Labour members who rated him have quit the party! So the comparison between the 71% and 46% is not really fair
Even that, if it is what has occurred, it makes for a significant point about the changing nature, and therefore views, of the Labour membership, so it seems relatively fair all the same - even if it is not so much that people are changing their minds, it shows the reduction in his worship by the membership.
The problem with Theo Bertram's point is that loads of the Labour members who rated him have quit the party! So the comparison between the 71% and 46% is not really fair
Even that, if it is what has occurred, it makes for a significant point about the changing nature, and therefore views, of the Labour membership, so it seems relatively fair all the same - even if it is not so much that people are changing their minds, it shows the reduction in his worship by the membership.
Hmmm maybe... I don't think you can say "How fickle..." though, as the people who rated him probably still do, they are just not Labour members anymore
Better than Attlee? Labour members cerca late-2019 were certifiable!
Presumably many of the new members had never heard of him. These people confidently claimed Corbyn was the greatest ever campaigner for peace and anti-racism, despite him being virtually unknown outside of certain circles until 2015.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
Interesting that Suzanne Moore in her interview with Unherd made a comparison about he difference between working at the Mail (as a token leftie) and the Guardian.
One was a place where many journalists said don't agree with you on a political level, but you absolutely have the write what you feel, and the management made clear that was her role at the newspaper and would be back the same as the right leaning ones and the other was the Guardian, where she makes it sound very much like they have a culture similar to The New York Times as described by people like Bari Weiss, dissent from particular orthodoxy will not be tolerated.
Manchester United are being held to RANSOM for millions of pounds by cyberhackers who targeted club computer systems and are demanding cash not to release sensitive data
Manchester United are being held to RANSOM for millions of pounds by cyberhackers who targeted club computer systems and are demanding cash not to release sensitive data
Just watched Tottenham reserves smash another team while barely getting into second gear. Big month ahead for them. Be interesting to see how they get on against Chelsea, Arsenal etc.
The problem with Theo Bertram's point is that loads of the Labour members who rated him have quit the party! So the comparison between the 71% and 46% is not really fair
Even that, if it is what has occurred, it makes for a significant point about the changing nature, and therefore views, of the Labour membership, so it seems relatively fair all the same - even if it is not so much that people are changing their minds, it shows the reduction in his worship by the membership.
Its a voodoo poll. It was shared to me by a corbynite friend. Anyone could answer, member or not.
The problem with Theo Bertram's point is that loads of the Labour members who rated him have quit the party! So the comparison between the 71% and 46% is not really fair
Even that, if it is what has occurred, it makes for a significant point about the changing nature, and therefore views, of the Labour membership, so it seems relatively fair all the same - even if it is not so much that people are changing their minds, it shows the reduction in his worship by the membership.
Its a voodoo poll. It was shared to me by a corbynite friend. Anyone could answer, member or not.
I don't normally bet, but I am tempted to put some money on a no-deal Brexit. I expect a no deal will cost me money, so hedging against it by betting on it seems worth considering.
I see no momentum or urgency towards agreeing a deal, or any sign that this will change. It was noticeable that the Downing Street press conference today included no comments about Brexit that were reported on the BBC News at 10. I think agreeing a deal seems to be like just too much hard work for the government at the moment, which is preoccupied with the pandemic and its consequences.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
I presumed that photo was a link to an article, but it isn't, its just a photo of Starmer. Weird.
Not at all. Without it she could, if she chose, later claim to simply not be happy with various practices of the party without directly being critical of the leader (albeit it would be obvious), instead she is upfront who she is blaming for what is happening.
Abbot and co must secretly be very happy to be back in their comfort zone, attacking the leader of the Labour party. It's awful finding yourself in a position of responsibility you are not suitable for but are too proud to step back from, the dreams of the membership on your shoulders and potentially actual voters to end up responsible for.
Much better to engage in internecine factional bickering where the enemy is beside you.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
Lovely to see that ex RCP member Claire Fox is now an advocate for the festival celebrating the birth of Christ.
Wasn't it borrowed from the Romans?
Saturnalia? To be honest I think the catholic half of Christendom did move Christmas from supposed birthdate of Jesus to fit in with pagan festivals, because the flock were ignoring the Christian one?
That’s all the past now though, when there was a festival period celebrating the birth of Christ, before it was the great consumption festival celebrating the birth of contactless commerce decorated by a few pagan trimmings.
The problem with Theo Bertram's point is that loads of the Labour members who rated him have quit the party! So the comparison between the 71% and 46% is not really fair
Even that, if it is what has occurred, it makes for a significant point about the changing nature, and therefore views, of the Labour membership, so it seems relatively fair all the same - even if it is not so much that people are changing their minds, it shows the reduction in his worship by the membership.
Its a voodoo poll. It was shared to me by a corbynite friend. Anyone could answer, member or not.
Yes - Labour List has a pretty good track record in predicting internal party elections etc. - they avoid classification in their articles.
We had Ann Black at the CLP this evening - huge audience, and intelligent, amicable discussion. I've heard there are CLPs that arenm't like that, but ours is - perhaps helps that we're in a safe Tory seat, so internal division seems a bit silly.
Lovely to see that ex RCP member Claire Fox is now an advocate for the festival celebrating the birth of Christ.
Wasn't it borrowed from the Romans?
Saturnalia? To be honest I think the catholic half of Christendom did move Christmas from supposed birthdate of Jesus to fit in with pagan festivals, because the flock were ignoring the Christian one?
That’s all the past now though, when there was a festival period celebrating the birth of Christ, before it was the great consumption festival celebrating the birth of contactless commerce decorated by a few pagan trimmings.
The pagan trimmings are a more meaningful and truer reflection and meaning of Saturnalia than the Christian trimmings they tried to associate with it.
Pagan trimmings, songs, family and contactless commerce are quite enough for me.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
Surely the idea that a woman ought to be a virgin when first climbing into the marital bed is at best ultra-niche these days. Nevertheless, I wonder how many men, even self-proclaimed progressive ones, would feel queasy to learn that their new wives had had, say, thirty more sexual partners than them?
Donald Trump says he will leave White House if the United States Electoral College convenes to elect Joe Biden president....but fraud, stop the count....
Brexit deals -- this week's Spectator TV has an interesting 13-minute interview with Sir Ivan Rogers on either side's perspective, and what Britain rejected under both Labour and Conservative governments.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
Surely the idea that a woman ought to be a virgin when first climbing into the marital bed is at best ultra-niche these days. Nevertheless, I wonder how many men, even self-proclaimed progressive ones, would feel queasy to learn that their new wives had had, say, thirty more sexual partners than them?
It affects even the most earnest progressives, as you say - John Lennon apparently wrote ‘Jealous Guy’ as an apology for demanding Yoko Ono list the men she’d slept with before him .
“The North sees red”. Metro. Not even The Sun supportive.
Would it have been stronger politically and scientifically not to have taken the country out of lockdown into tiers, just extend the lockdown till Christmas? Was decision actually driven by the economics of avoiding the fairer compensation packages to sectors hurt much the same by t3 even t2 as they would in lockdown, only now much less government support? If so, have they underestimated the political hit this approach can bring?
Also what is the situation with Liverpool style testing assistance? Liverpool got it for free but from now local authorities have to pay for it themselves?
It’s a Downing Street regime who love nothing better than stoking news cycles against themselves
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
The two points are not contradictory. Many formerly mainstream views are now considered beyond the pale, and some views that are mainstream now will be considerd beyond the pale one day. In some cases we may well go back in a circle.
Noting that many admired people of history also held views which would now be considered unusual or even abhorrent won't make consideration of those views as abhorrent change now, it'll just cause some people to get mad at those heroes because they judge historical figures by current morals.
I presumed that photo was a link to an article, but it isn't, its just a photo of Starmer. Weird.
Not at all. Without it she could, if she chose, later claim to simply not be happy with various practices of the party without directly being critical of the leader (albeit it would be obvious), instead she is upfront who she is blaming for what is happening.
Abbot and co must secretly be very happy to be back in their comfort zone, attacking the leader of the Labour party. It's awful finding yourself in a position of responsibility you are not suitable for but are too proud to step back from, the dreams of the membership on your shoulders and potentially actual voters to end up responsible for.
Much better to engage in internecine factional bickering where the enemy is beside you.
Which is perhaps why SKS's removal of the whip from JC was not such a good idea. The various factions in any party, and under FPTP there will inevitably be factions in "broad church" parties, need to find ways to work with each other.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
Bigotry and racism were also mainstream back then, and are also beyond the pale today.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
I sympathize - some of my views were mainstream in the 1800s, and I don't see why I should have to move on just because the world has.
I don't normally bet, but I am tempted to put some money on a no-deal Brexit. I expect a no deal will cost me money, so hedging against it by betting on it seems worth considering.
I see no momentum or urgency towards agreeing a deal, or any sign that this will change. It was noticeable that the Downing Street press conference today included no comments about Brexit that were reported on the BBC News at 10. I think agreeing a deal seems to be like just too much hard work for the government at the moment, which is preoccupied with the pandemic and its consequences.
Be careful as what constitutes a deal for betting purposes might not be what the Daily Telegraph or Nigel Farage considers a deal. Read the rules carefully and then reflect on the apparently endless saga of Betfair's failure to settle political markets satisfactorily.
Lovely to see that ex RCP member Claire Fox is now an advocate for the festival celebrating the birth of Christ.
Wasn't it borrowed from the Romans?
Saturnalia? To be honest I think the catholic half of Christendom did move Christmas from supposed birthdate of Jesus to fit in with pagan festivals, because the flock were ignoring the Christian one?
That’s all the past now though, when there was a festival period celebrating the birth of Christ, before it was the great consumption festival celebrating the birth of contactless commerce decorated by a few pagan trimmings.
The pagan trimmings are a more meaningful and truer reflection and meaning of Saturnalia than the Christian trimmings they tried to associate with it.
Pagan trimmings, songs, family and contactless commerce are quite enough for me.
Off top me head, Saturnalia being a Latin thing, north Europe more Yule? There wasn’t a Pagan religion, but Pagan religions and mystery cults. Though recent studies shows up much shared between them across Eurasia.
But in Saturnalia, as with abbots of unreason, and Lords of Misrule, did the social secretary setting up the weeks of feasting really get sacrificed as its centre piece?
I presumed that photo was a link to an article, but it isn't, its just a photo of Starmer. Weird.
Not at all. Without it she could, if she chose, later claim to simply not be happy with various practices of the party without directly being critical of the leader (albeit it would be obvious), instead she is upfront who she is blaming for what is happening.
Abbot and co must secretly be very happy to be back in their comfort zone, attacking the leader of the Labour party. It's awful finding yourself in a position of responsibility you are not suitable for but are too proud to step back from, the dreams of the membership on your shoulders and potentially actual voters to end up responsible for.
Much better to engage in internecine factional bickering where the enemy is beside you.
Which is perhaps why SKS's removal of the whip from JC was not such a good idea. The various factions in any party, and under FPTP there will inevitably be factions in "broad church" parties, need to find ways to work with each other.
Perhaps, I was surprised he did it, but sometimes suppressing a confrontation just prolongs it and weakens you. Sometimes one side has to win before you rebuild.
I view it as an outsider, of course, and with the bias of not liking Corbyn, but I don't think Starmer wants to destroy the left of the party or even Corbyn. I think he's too pragmatic an operator for that. But I also think that Corbyn and his outriders harboured dreams of exercising continued influence on the party through the mass membership, with the potential of undermining Starmer as leader whenever they wanted. Corbyn and co have always rebelled fruitlessly in parliament, but they might well like doing it but with the members behind them to undercut the party leadership.
By having the confrontation now it may not destroy the left of the party, may not even be designed to do that, but it might be able to cut Corbyn off from his dreams of harnessing the membership that once adored him. Certainly the members, voodoo poll or not, are not likely united on the issue of his having the whip, but that is kind of enough - he is being kept under review by Starmer, shown he cannot get his way when he throws a tantrum, and the membership is at best divided enough on the issue that Starmer reckons he can do it.
Keep that up, and as more become used to the leadership, and Corbyn may find he has to knuckle under a lot more than he was used to.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
Surely the idea that a woman ought to be a virgin when first climbing into the marital bed is at best ultra-niche these days. Nevertheless, I wonder how many men, even self-proclaimed progressive ones, would feel queasy to learn that their new wives had had, say, thirty more sexual partners than them?
4% of men and 5% of women say they would wait until marriage to have sex, so about the same as now back the LDs, at the other extreme 28% of men say you they would have sex after a first date but only 7% of women agree
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
The two points are not contradictory. Many formerly mainstream views are now considered beyond the pale, and some views that are mainstream now will be considerd beyond the pale one day. In some cases we may well go back in a circle.
Noting that many admired people of history also held views which would now be considered unusual or even abhorrent won't make consideration of those views as abhorrent change now, it'll just cause some people to get mad at those heroes because they judge historical figures by current morals.
It's the pressure to conform with the prevailing orthodoxy that is paradoxically pretty illiberal.People should be entitled to stand back and be able to freely express the view that certain changes have not been for the good - and,perhaps to at least some extent, should be reversed. Instead some of us find ourselves labelled as 'bigots' by others who see themselves as truly liberal simply for daring to express what were not so long ago very widely held views which now happen to be at variance with their own.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
I sympathize - some of my views were mainstream in the 1800s, and I don't see why I should have to move on just because the world has.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
I sympathize - some of my views were mainstream in the 1800s, and I don't see why I should have to move on just because the world has.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
I sympathize - some of my views were mainstream in the 1800s, and I don't see why I should have to move on just because the world has.
You were alive in the 1800s ?
No, his views were.
Then he is not refusing to ‘move on’, so much as insisting on regressing.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
The two points are not contradictory. Many formerly mainstream views are now considered beyond the pale, and some views that are mainstream now will be considerd beyond the pale one day. In some cases we may well go back in a circle.
Noting that many admired people of history also held views which would now be considered unusual or even abhorrent won't make consideration of those views as abhorrent change now, it'll just cause some people to get mad at those heroes because they judge historical figures by current morals.
It's the pressure to conform with the prevailing orthodoxy that is paradoxically pretty illiberal.People should be entitled to stand back and be able to freely express the view that certain changes have not been for the good - and,perhaps to at least some extent, should be reversed. Instead some of us find ourselves labelled as 'bigots' by others who see themselves as truly liberal simply for daring to express what were not so long ago very widely held views which now happen to be at variance with their own.
By happenstance I have just started reading On Liberty for the first time. I was immediately struck by an early comment that 'So natural to makind is intolerance in whatever they really care about', albeit that was in respect of religious freedom and lack of practical reality in many places, but I do think we are all naturally pretty intolerant.
I kind of prefer people explain why they think social changes have not been good, as I'd rather they be honest and I can judge them for that, if I wish, and challenge it, than it fester beneath the surface or display itself through actions without explanation, and it is just presumed to no longer be a debate that needs having. Many what we consider to be fundamental rights and views would not have been seen as such by most of history, so the fight is everlasting.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
I sympathize - some of my views were mainstream in the 1800s, and I don't see why I should have to move on just because the world has.
I presumed that photo was a link to an article, but it isn't, its just a photo of Starmer. Weird.
Not at all. Without it she could, if she chose, later claim to simply not be happy with various practices of the party without directly being critical of the leader (albeit it would be obvious), instead she is upfront who she is blaming for what is happening.
Abbot and co must secretly be very happy to be back in their comfort zone, attacking the leader of the Labour party. It's awful finding yourself in a position of responsibility you are not suitable for but are too proud to step back from, the dreams of the membership on your shoulders and potentially actual voters to end up responsible for.
Much better to engage in internecine factional bickering where the enemy is beside you.
Which is perhaps why SKS's removal of the whip from JC was not such a good idea. The various factions in any party, and under FPTP there will inevitably be factions in "broad church" parties, need to find ways to work with each other.
Perhaps, I was surprised he did it, but sometimes suppressing a confrontation just prolongs it and weakens you. Sometimes one side has to win before you rebuild.
I view it as an outsider, of course, and with the bias of not liking Corbyn, but I don't think Starmer wants to destroy the left of the party or even Corbyn. I think he's too pragmatic an operator for that. But I also think that Corbyn and his outriders harboured dreams of exercising continued influence on the party through the mass membership, with the potential of undermining Starmer as leader whenever they wanted. Corbyn and co have always rebelled fruitlessly in parliament, but they might well like doing it but with the members behind them to undercut the party leadership.
By having the confrontation now it may not destroy the left of the party, may not even be designed to do that, but it might be able to cut Corbyn off from his dreams of harnessing the membership that once adored him. Certainly the members, voodoo poll or not, are not likely united on the issue of his having the whip, but that is kind of enough - he is being kept under review by Starmer, shown he cannot get his way when he throws a tantrum, and the membership is at best divided enough on the issue that Starmer reckons he can do it.
Keep that up, and as more become used to the leadership, and Corbyn may find he has to knuckle under a lot more than he was used to.
The story is that SKS was pressured into removing the whip from JC by Margaret Hodge threatening to walk out, but it remains unfortunate.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
I sympathize - some of my views were mainstream in the 1800s, and I don't see why I should have to move on just because the world has.
You were alive in the 1800s ?
That's why he is so loyal, he's literally seen every incarnation of the Conservative Party.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
I sympathize - some of my views were mainstream in the 1800s, and I don't see why I should have to move on just because the world has.
You were alive in the 1800s ?
No, his views were.
My more modern ones, anyway. The older ones go back to about the Late Bronze Age.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
I sympathize - some of my views were mainstream in the 1800s, and I don't see why I should have to move on just because the world has.
You were alive in the 1800s ?
No, his views were.
My more modern ones, anyway. The older ones go back to about the Late Bronze Age.
Sometimes the past has much to teach us still. I think reintroduction of the weregeld will be in the next set of manifestoes once society collapses a bit.
This don't hug your relatives advice is a bit of a godsend. I typically greet my father with a handshake anyway.
A formal bow is the approved greeting these days.
I shall namaste.
Kowtowing remains acceptable I assume, but you have to draw the line. Not to the Emperor of China, nor to you, Dad!
I didn’t suggest you prostrate yourself. The Asian bow is a very flexible form of greeting, which can indicate every degree of respect - or lack of it.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
Surely the idea that a woman ought to be a virgin when first climbing into the marital bed is at best ultra-niche these days. Nevertheless, I wonder how many men, even self-proclaimed progressive ones, would feel queasy to learn that their new wives had had, say, thirty more sexual partners than them?
4% of men and 5% of women say they would wait until marriage to have sex, so about the same as now back the LDs, at the other extreme 28% of men say you they would have sex after a first date but only 7% of women agree
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
Surely the idea that a woman ought to be a virgin when first climbing into the marital bed is at best ultra-niche these days. Nevertheless, I wonder how many men, even self-proclaimed progressive ones, would feel queasy to learn that their new wives had had, say, thirty more sexual partners than them?
It affects even the most earnest progressives, as you say - John Lennon apparently wrote ‘Jealous Guy’ as an apology for demanding Yoko Ono list the men she’d slept with before him .
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
I sympathize - some of my views were mainstream in the 1800s, and I don't see why I should have to move on just because the world has.
You were alive in the 1800s ?
No, his views were.
My more modern ones, anyway. The older ones go back to about the Late Bronze Age.
Sometimes the past has much to teach us still. I think reintroduction of the weregeld will be in the next set of manifestoes once society collapses a bit.
Is weregeld the bounty payment for killing a werewolf?
Oxford/AstraZeneca say full results will be available soon, perhaps early next week; also, the data only went up to the 3rd November, and more has come in since which may make things clearer.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
I sympathize - some of my views were mainstream in the 1800s, and I don't see why I should have to move on just because the world has.
You were alive in the 1800s ?
No, his views were.
My more modern ones, anyway. The older ones go back to about the Late Bronze Age.
Sometimes the past has much to teach us still. I think reintroduction of the weregeld will be in the next set of manifestoes once society collapses a bit.
Is weregeld the bounty payment for killing a werewolf?
The government has asked the regulator to assess the Oxford/AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine, bringing the UK a step closer to a possible rollout.
The referral to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) marked "a significant first step" in getting the vaccine "approved for deployment", the government said.
Woke claxon. A teacher has been sacked for planning to talk to pupils about gender roles.
“The Head Master felt that some of the ideas put forward in my lecture – such as the view that men and women differ psychologically and not all of those differences are socially constructed – were too dangerous for the boys to be exposed to.”
“I explained to the Head Master that I wasn’t endorsing all the ideas in my lecture, but I wanted the boys to be made aware of a different point of view to the current radical feminist orthodoxy, which insists that there’s something fundamentally toxic about masculinity.
Woke claxon. A teacher has been sacked for planning to talk to pupils about gender roles.
“The Head Master felt that some of the ideas put forward in my lecture – such as the view that men and women differ psychologically and not all of those differences are socially constructed – were too dangerous for the boys to be exposed to.”
“I explained to the Head Master that I wasn’t endorsing all the ideas in my lecture, but I wanted the boys to be made aware of a different point of view to the current radical feminist orthodoxy, which insists that there’s something fundamentally toxic about masculinity.
If you want to be taken seriously on here maybe just tone down the inflammatory angle? There are numerous other sites for antagonism and I'm sure you would find a warm welcome over at Paul Staines' house.
For those of you betting on the Georgia run-offs, there's a suggestion that the Republican vote is weakened by the conflicting message of voter fraud. In other words, the message that we need you to get out and vote is hampered by the quite widely held GOP view that the voting system is rigged.
I don't buy into this, even though I would like to. I think Jon Ossoff 'may' beat Purdue but in the other battle I think Warnock will win for the GOP.
If you want to be taken seriously on here maybe just tone down the inflammatory angle? There are numerous other sites for antagonism and I'm sure you would find a warm welcome over at Paul Staines' house.
Satire, old chap. I'm taking the pee out of Dave & Boris's alma mater. And JRM's. And the Archbishop of Canterbury's. As you would know if you had read to the end.
If you want to be taken seriously on here maybe just tone down the inflammatory angle? There are numerous other sites for antagonism and I'm sure you would find a warm welcome over at Paul Staines' house.
Satire, old chap. I'm taking the pee out of Dave & Boris's alma mater. And JRM's. And the Archbishop of Canterbury's. As you would know if you had read to the end.
And if you paid more attention to detail you would know that I'm not a chap.
I did read to the end of your message and couldn't find any satire. Why would Eton College be any less part of the debate than Acland Burghley Comprehensive? Many leading private schools are more 'woke' on gender than state schools: St Paul's and Brighton College being good examples:
Coming back to the main topic, looking at the GBP it seems very resilient against the dollar and other currrencies. I would have expected it be much weaker - would have thought that DT's acceptance of US election "result" would have strengthened the USD? Is it the Dishy Rishu factor that keeps GBP buoyant...after all BREXIT kicks in 5 weeks from now....
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
I sympathize - some of my views were mainstream in the 1800s, and I don't see why I should have to move on just because the world has.
1800s?! Hipster whippersnapper alert.
A good ScotNat of course wants to go back to the 1500s.
US elections - how is it that a narrative has become established, almost universally that there is some sort of incongruence between Democrat performance in Congressional election and Biden’s victory? Why is the comparison always with 2018? In 2016 the GOP won by 241-194. By any objective standard therefore there has been a massive voter shift to the Dems in 4 years. There is no anomaly here.
I don't normally bet, but I am tempted to put some money on a no-deal Brexit. I expect a no deal will cost me money, so hedging against it by betting on it seems worth considering.
I see no momentum or urgency towards agreeing a deal, or any sign that this will change. It was noticeable that the Downing Street press conference today included no comments about Brexit that were reported on the BBC News at 10. I think agreeing a deal seems to be like just too much hard work for the government at the moment, which is preoccupied with the pandemic and its consequences.
I would have thought that the most likely scenario is that a deal is announced in... ohhh... about mid December, but although it is "agreed", there are a few kinks that need to be ironed out, and therefore the UK and the EU are extending the transition until the end of April.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
Justin, while I disagree with you, you are entitled to your views on personal morality and they do not make you "beyond the pale".
People should be allowed to disagree.
Broadly I agree. The problem comes when some ideas are so toxic that they cause harm in and of themselves. Freedom of choice is never supposed to include freedom from consequence.
Most people would agree that a line is drawn somewhere in the sand, although there are some ultra-libertarians around. Preaching paedophilia would be an example of a toxic idea that is harmful. Terrorism is another. Both are currently covered under UK legislation.
Things get more thorny when it comes to vaccination. Or, indeed, mask wearing.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
Justin, while I disagree with you, you are entitled to your views on personal morality and they do not make you "beyond the pale".
People should be allowed to disagree.
Broadly I agree. The problem comes when some ideas are so toxic that they cause harm in and of themselves. Freedom of choice is never supposed to include freedom from consequence.
Most people would agree that a line is drawn somewhere in the sand, although there are some ultra-libertarians around. Preaching paedophilia would be an example of a toxic idea that is harmful. Terrorism is another. Both are currently covered under UK legislation.
Things get more thorny when it comes to vaccination. Or, indeed, mask wearing.
Good morning everybody. Ms Rose, sometimes one has to be careful about 'terrorism'. What would we think of a 'terrorist' act which brought about regime change in, say, N. Korea?
I didn`t expect to still be betting on the election. You can lay Trump at 14.5 on BF to be Next President. I left some unmatched and went to bed to find it was picked up overnight.Astonishing. I trust is wasn`t any of you lot. The book is close-on 100% as well.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
Justin, while I disagree with you, you are entitled to your views on personal morality and they do not make you "beyond the pale".
People should be allowed to disagree.
Broadly I agree. The problem comes when some ideas are so toxic that they cause harm in and of themselves. Freedom of choice is never supposed to include freedom from consequence.
Most people would agree that a line is drawn somewhere in the sand, although there are some ultra-libertarians around. Preaching paedophilia would be an example of a toxic idea that is harmful. Terrorism is another. Both are currently covered under UK legislation.
Things get more thorny when it comes to vaccination. Or, indeed, mask wearing.
Good morning everybody. Ms Rose, sometimes one has to be careful about 'terrorism'. What would we think of a 'terrorist' act which brought about regime change in, say, N. Korea?
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I have come to the conclusion that the lesson of the Diana saga is: have nothing to do with a man who is not prepared to shag you until his doctor has examined your fanny. It's bloody rude.
Many guys expect their women to be 'virgo intacta' prior to intimacy. In the 60s it was still very much the norm.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
I am not a member of the Labour Party - though suspect that my views would be shared by Clement Attlee, Stafford Cripps and indeed John Smith. Lord Longford certainly would have approved. Who decreed that to be a party member a person must go along with the 'permissive society'?
You'll get Attlee and co cancelled at this rate. I certainly don't support your views on this subject nor particularly why there being common decades ago is of huge relevance, but given our condemnation of historical figures simply through the shifting moral zeitgeist I would not be at all surprised if many figures even from the 50s held views the modern party would kick people out of it for.
The point is that my views were mainstream in the 1950s and early 1960s - yet many on here seem to feel they are 'beyond the pale.'
And quite unremarkable today in many ethnic communities. There is room for diversity of views on such things.
I wouldn't go so far as @justin124 myself, but It does seem that the breakdown of conventional sexual morality over recent decades has had an adverse effect on many.
The gain in terms of individual sexual freedoms has been offset by considerable problems for individuals and society. Being a single parent household means more likely to be unemployed, more benefits dependency, higher rates of educational failure etc etc
Indeed conventional attitudes to family life correlate quite strongly with educational success and upward social mobility, as well as childhood mental health. When looked at objectively it is hard to disagree.
Comments
One was a place where many journalists said don't agree with you on a political level, but you absolutely have the write what you feel, and the management made clear that was her role at the newspaper and would be back the same as the right leaning ones and the other was the Guardian, where she makes it sound very much like they have a culture similar to The New York Times as described by people like Bari Weiss, dissent from particular orthodoxy will not be tolerated.
Experts! Punters... whadda they know....
JACK W
First
that starts the thread.
You really are the most horrible bigot. Your repressive attitude to sex has no place in the Labour Party. Please take your reactionary views elsewhere.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-8989881/Manchester-United-held-RANSOM-cyberhackers-control-computers.html
It’s a shame we no longer get to weigh in.
https://twitter.com/alemannoEU/status/1330837498956754944
I see no momentum or urgency towards agreeing a deal, or any sign that this will change. It was noticeable that the Downing Street press conference today included no comments about Brexit that were reported on the BBC News at 10. I think agreeing a deal seems to be like just too much hard work for the government at the moment, which is preoccupied with the pandemic and its consequences.
Abbot and co must secretly be very happy to be back in their comfort zone, attacking the leader of the Labour party. It's awful finding yourself in a position of responsibility you are not suitable for but are too proud to step back from, the dreams of the membership on your shoulders and potentially actual voters to end up responsible for.
Much better to engage in internecine factional bickering where the enemy is beside you.
That’s all the past now though, when there was a festival period celebrating the birth of Christ, before it was the great consumption festival celebrating the birth of contactless commerce decorated by a few pagan trimmings.
Biden 1.07
Democrats 1.07
Biden PV 1.03
Biden PV 49-51.9% 1.04
Trump PV 46-48.9% 1.07
Trump ECV 210-239 1.1
Biden ECV 300-329 1.09
Biden ECV Hcap -48.5 1.06
Biden ECV Hcap -63.5 1.07
Trump ECV Hcap +81.5 1.01
AZ Dem 1.07
GA Dem 1.08
MI Dem 1.07
NV Dem 1.05
PA Dem 1.07
WI Dem 1.06
Trump to leave before end of term NO 1.09
Trump exit date 2021 1.08
We had Ann Black at the CLP this evening - huge audience, and intelligent, amicable discussion. I've heard there are CLPs that arenm't like that, but ours is - perhaps helps that we're in a safe Tory seat, so internal division seems a bit silly.
Pagan trimmings, songs, family and contactless commerce are quite enough for me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHbM4JONmI8
https://youtu.be/dgmq30e7cu4?t=2820s
Would it have been stronger politically and scientifically not to have taken the country out of lockdown into tiers, just extend the lockdown till Christmas? Was decision actually driven by the economics of avoiding the fairer compensation packages to sectors hurt much the same by t3 even t2 as they would in lockdown, only now much less government support? If so, have they underestimated the political hit this approach can bring?
Also what is the situation with Liverpool style testing assistance? Liverpool got it for free but from now local authorities have to pay for it themselves?
It’s a Downing Street regime who love nothing better than stoking news cycles against themselves
Noting that many admired people of history also held views which would now be considered unusual or even abhorrent won't make consideration of those views as abhorrent change now, it'll just cause some people to get mad at those heroes because they judge historical figures by current morals.
Female legal equality and autonomy are pretty recent developments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women's_legal_rights_(other_than_voting)_in_the_20th_century
But the treatment of Diana was weird and regressive back when it occurred.
But in Saturnalia, as with abbots of unreason, and Lords of Misrule, did the social secretary setting up the weeks of feasting really get sacrificed as its centre piece?
Did they get to open their presents first? 😕
I view it as an outsider, of course, and with the bias of not liking Corbyn, but I don't think Starmer wants to destroy the left of the party or even Corbyn. I think he's too pragmatic an operator for that. But I also think that Corbyn and his outriders harboured dreams of exercising continued influence on the party through the mass membership, with the potential of undermining Starmer as leader whenever they wanted. Corbyn and co have always rebelled fruitlessly in parliament, but they might well like doing it but with the members behind them to undercut the party leadership.
By having the confrontation now it may not destroy the left of the party, may not even be designed to do that, but it might be able to cut Corbyn off from his dreams of harnessing the membership that once adored him. Certainly the members, voodoo poll or not, are not likely united on the issue of his having the whip, but that is kind of enough - he is being kept under review by Starmer, shown he cannot get his way when he throws a tantrum, and the membership is at best divided enough on the issue that Starmer reckons he can do it.
Keep that up, and as more become used to the leadership, and Corbyn may find he has to knuckle under a lot more than he was used to.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relationships/articles-reports/2017/03/30/how-many-dates-should-you-wait-having-sex-someone
I kind of prefer people explain why they think social changes have not been good, as I'd rather they be honest and I can judge them for that, if I wish, and challenge it, than it fester beneath the surface or display itself through actions without explanation, and it is just presumed to no longer be a debate that needs having. Many what we consider to be fundamental rights and views would not have been seen as such by most of history, so the fight is everlasting.
Hipster whippersnapper alert.
Kowtowing remains acceptable I assume, but you have to draw the line. Not to the Emperor of China, nor to you, Dad!
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/nov/26/viggo-mortensen-lance-henriksen-falling
Henriksen has an amazing backstory, of which I was unaware.
The Asian bow is a very flexible form of greeting, which can indicate every degree of respect - or lack of it.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1332119140870590471?s=20
Who even knew there was polling on the topic?
It's a view.
The tweet was when Eric Yuan knew something had to change.
Boris Johnson, the UK prime minister, shared a photo from his first ever virtual cabinet meeting. The cybersecurity red flags jumped out immediately.
Some cabinet secretaries' Zoom screen names were visible, you could see which platform the cabinet was running its computers on, and most glaringly, the meeting ID was visible for all to see.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/23/tech/zoom-founder-eric-yuan-risk-takers/index.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55094301
https://unherd.com/thepost/i-am-utterly-confused-about-the-oxford-vaccine/
The referral to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) marked "a significant first step" in getting the vaccine "approved for deployment", the government said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55096434
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1332168970036719617?s=20
“The Head Master felt that some of the ideas put forward in my lecture – such as the view that men and women differ psychologically and not all of those differences are socially constructed – were too dangerous for the boys to be exposed to.”
“I explained to the Head Master that I wasn’t endorsing all the ideas in my lecture, but I wanted the boys to be made aware of a different point of view to the current radical feminist orthodoxy, which insists that there’s something fundamentally toxic about masculinity.
The name of this radical leftist academy?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/26/exclusive-eton-college-dismisses-teacher-amid-free-speech-row/
I don't buy into this, even though I would like to. I think Jon Ossoff 'may' beat Purdue but in the other battle I think Warnock will win for the GOP.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/usa-election-georgia/with-senate-on-the-line-trumps-claims-of-election-fraud-put-georgia-republicans-in-bind-idUSKBN2842XI
I did read to the end of your message and couldn't find any satire. Why would Eton College be any less part of the debate than Acland Burghley Comprehensive? Many leading private schools are more 'woke' on gender than state schools: St Paul's and Brighton College being good examples:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/19/st-pauls-girls-school-pupils-choose-gender-indentity
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/20/brighton-college-axes-uniform-dress-code-accommodate-transgender-pupils
People should be allowed to disagree.
Most people would agree that a line is drawn somewhere in the sand, although there are some ultra-libertarians around. Preaching paedophilia would be an example of a toxic idea that is harmful. Terrorism is another. Both are currently covered under UK legislation.
Things get more thorny when it comes to vaccination. Or, indeed, mask wearing.
Did American Democracy Really Hold? Maybe Not.
Donald Trump didn’t manage to overthrow the electoral system. But he’s drawn a clear road map for breaking it.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/25/did-american-democracy-really-hold-maybe-not-440595
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/24/michigan-election-trump-voter-fraud-democracy-440475
Ms Rose, sometimes one has to be careful about 'terrorism'. What would we think of a 'terrorist' act which brought about regime change in, say, N. Korea?
That one is easy
I wouldn't go so far as @justin124 myself, but It does seem that the breakdown of conventional sexual morality over recent decades has had an adverse effect on many.
The gain in terms of individual sexual freedoms has been offset by considerable problems for individuals and society. Being a single parent household means more likely to be unemployed, more benefits dependency, higher rates of educational failure etc etc
Indeed conventional attitudes to family life correlate quite strongly with educational success and upward social mobility, as well as childhood mental health. When looked at objectively it is hard to disagree.