It's the infantile nature of protesting people not adhering to your faith (or your interpretation of your faith) that always gets me.
People of faith include some of the very best people I know, but theyll come across a lot of things contrary to their faith every damn day and most accept that. Perhaps theyll even proselytize to change things, no problem.
If your faith is strong it can survive the existence of non believers, infidels and apostates without your mind blowing, even if they offend you.
At least in terms of the Christian Wars of Religion following the Reformation, and persecution of heretics before, you are missing the point.
It's not the individual's faith that is threatened by a non-believer. It's the very security and survival of the community, because the devoutly religious believed that God will punish them collectively for the sin of the heretic.
If you believe that famine is a punishment from God, then it's easy to blame the heretic for that punishment.
I do not know where Islam is on the continuum of being able to tolerate heresy. It seems considerably closer to the 17th century then Christianity - but toleration is surprisingly recent for Christianity too, and arguably an incomplete process.
(With apologies to David Crowther of the History of England for anything that I've mangled from his podcasts)
I'm certainly not missing the point in the slightest, because I'm not talking about how people might reasonably feel about the security and survival of their religious community in the past when the material stakes were much higher, and historic tolerances, I am talking about now.
The history of it all is fascinating, but now is not then. Someone of a particular faith in this country is not in danger from the majority not sharing their views. They might still feel a general imperative that all should share their faith, hence they can proselytize, but neither they nor their community are threatened in how they practice their faith and have no grounds, none, to impose the restrictions of their own faith of their community on to others.
And that is what it is. They cannot impose a faith or its restrictions. And they try to present that as being under attack.
But most people of the major faiths in this country seem to get by just fine knowing there are people who do not share their faith, and that some of what others believe and so will offend them. They will seek to change the behaviour of others as a result. And that is totally fine by me.
What is not fine, is pretending their community is imperrilled by the actions of others not following their precepts.
In the Batley case, though, wasn't the teacher involved somewhat disrespectful to the Prophet? I don't think the vast majority of people object to children being taught about the various faiths practised in this country.
Australia being punished for being an "Anglo-Saxon county", even though it isn't really these days.
Racially, it may not be. But culturally, it is very much so. In many parameters, more Anglo than the UK.
Yes, on my first visit to Australia - about 15 years ago - I was astonished how British it felt. More British than, say, Canada, indeed more British than Ireland. It was and is Britain in the sun. Every visit since has reinforced that view.
I’d be tempted to buy a place there tomorrow if it weren’t for the yawning distance
Blimey have tuned in to PB this morning to see that everyone has turned into @contrarian.
About time. What many failed to see and are now realising is that red lines can be ignored, and others' scoffed at. Until. Your own red lines are the ones being breached.
If I may be allowed to quote myself:
"People scream on here: "but lockdowns work. Go Government". As if that is the most important aspect to all this legislation.
And before they know it they are faced with some measure or other which breeches their own red lines and then they say "well they can't do that". But they already have. And then they look around frantically for Steve Baker of all people to come and rescue them/us all."
Contrarian has been railing against restrictions at a time when cases and deaths were going through the roof and there was a real danger of hospitals being overwhelmed within weeks. That's a minority view, on here and in the country.
The extension of emergency powers to the autumn, when any sensible analysis suggests they should not, in all probability, be needed makes many of us queasy. I supported the January lockdown. I'm fine with the pretty cautious opening up plan. I want to see some very good reasons why legislation needs extending now. As we've seen before, steps can be taken quickly if needed, we don't need to be agreeing these powers now.
You are proving my point. You think it was justified then but not now. Because your view of freedoms and legislation incorporate and justify taking such action then as though it is the only logical thing to have done. "Everyone agrees..."
But someone else's red line was back then and they thought the actions the government took were beyond what was justified given the circumstances. Were they right or wrong? Are you right or wrong? Is the key metric 10 lives or 10,000 lives? Irrelevant. It is the principle that is important. The government used and is using draconian powers to legislate (away) our freedoms.
Watch again that Tory MP and his pint of milk. Seems bonkers. Actually it is particularly acute and relevant.
I'll leave Contrarian to one side, if I may, as his/her arguments also include a bit of denialism in my view. Sometimes, I do find that Contrarian is plain wrong. Stocky was writing yesterday, arguing that what we've done this time was wrong because we can't do it every time. Stocky finds (I hope I'm interpreting right, apologies if not) that the enforced restriction of liberty is just too much, even though the threat is very real. That's not wrong, it's personal values. I'm on the other side of that debate to Stocky, but I can respect the argument and Stocky is in no way wrong.
As you say, we all have our tipping point. For some, we all need to stay locked down/restricted until we can be sure opening up will not cause any more deaths. For me, that's absurd. We don't lock down for flu every year. We don't set the speed limit to 20mph everywhere. We accept risks for benefits. We accept deaths for freedoms. I think we could probably go a bit quicker than planned, but I accept there are uncertainties and the government has been burned on this before, so I can accept the caution.
I'm not on SAGE, nor an expert in infectious disease, but I have worked with PHE/Dept of Health on projections for noncommunicable diseases. Don't get too concerned about the pessimistic reports. PHE/the government always want the worst case scenarios in addition to various 'realistic' scenarios. They like the certainty of a worst case scenario - as a scientist you're basically telling them there are lots of ifs, buts and maybes in all the other scenarios and it depends on actions and a lot of random, unpredictable factors. But with the worst case scenario you're essentially saying to them, I'm certain, it won't get worse than this. They tend to fixate on that certainty and ignore much of the rest (which can be frustrating!). When the worst case scenarios are no longer that troubling, that's when the politicians in charge of this will relax.
The public pessimism at the moment, I think, is designed to get people to stick with the restrictions as they're lifted under the current plan. We're not yet far enough with vaccinations to stop another wave of cases, at least. The unvaccinated are those more likely to spread and more likely to be infected. I expect the numbers will show that we could still get hospitals into trouble if the unvaccinated population goes crazy. We do need people to keep following restrictions now (although, as suggested yesterday by Andy Cooke, I think, it would be nice to loosen up earlier on outside stuff which is low risk). Come the summer, unless the unexpected happens, the worst case scenarios will no longer be scary and there's no reason we can't all crack on.
It's more than personal values. Our liberal democratic structures, which defines our rights and liberties etc, over-arch everything. These rights and liberties are not personal values, they are not fetishes, they are categorical imperatives. I'm astonished that what has happened can be legal. No government should have the power to override liberal democracy for a natural occurrence such as a virus.
So, @Stocky, I still don't quite get what you mean by the charge that the government overrode liberal democracy to fight the virus.
Maybe if we look at a practical example. When this thing kicked off on March 23 with Johnson's seminal "Stay at Home" broadcast - initiating what came to be known as Lockdown - are you saying that iyo this ought to have been a request not an instruction?
That codifying the restrictions in law was a violation of our liberal democracy?
I`m not a lawyer and to be honest I`m not sure. Miss Cyclefree and others are better equipped to answer this than I am. I want to answer your question with a simple "Yes" because removing rights and freedoms by law is obviously a violation of liberal democracy. But, though uncomfortable, I supported the initial lockdown which was for a maximum of twelve weeks and was expressly to stave off disaster in the health services. I was horrified that it was extended and wrote an header about it at the beginning of April. I felt that the seriousness of Covid in the round was being underplayed (and I think it still is). Johnson, of course, used wartime analogies but I don't feel this is appropriate with a natural event.
I don`t think that a particular government of any stripe should have the ability to over-ride the overarching system of governance that it works beneath and which elected it. As I said yesterday, how can it be that "details" such as leaving the EU / Scotland splitting MUST be tested by at least one referendum and strong parliamentary support (I know) but abandoning the whole system even for a short period does not. (Don't misunderstand me - I`m not arguing in favour of referenda.)
Sorry I can`t give a better answer but at least it`s an honest one. You won't feel as uncomfortable about all this as I do because I don`t think that you, along with others who are strongly left wing, see individual liberty as a categorical imperative. (Indeed, you described it a while back as a "fetish".) But you have to accept that we operate beneath a system that DOES regard liberty as such. I partly see this as an attempt to weaken liberal democracy to be honest. And it`s working.
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
I know what you mean but the analogy is inexact. The British monarchy is 1500 years old, it goes right back to Athelstan, Alfred, Offa the Great, and the god Woden. It is woven through British - English, welsh. Scottish and Irish - history, since the mists of the Dark Ages. It has endured invasion and conquest, civil wars, regicide, world war, and several plagues. And it is still there. Closely wound with every national institution, the embodiment of the nation - in a glorious medley of fine music, ancient tradition, religious belief, scurrilous gossip, grand architecture, sexual misbehavior and really beautiful gardens.
Destroying it to replace it with a republic would be like tearing down a magnificent Gothic cathedral to make way for much needed office space. There may be a practical argument, but it just isn’t going to happen. The cathedral reassures in its endurance, even if bits of it keep falling off.
The EU commission is not so ancient or beloved. Tho I agree it may survive out of sheer apathy.
I think you've fallen for the mythology, common to all nationalist ideologies, that the institutions and customs of their "nation" are ancient, eternal even. The British monarchy is only a couple of years older than the EU commission.
Lol, what? Our current monarch alone has reigned longer than the EU Commission has been in existence!
On topic, there is a tendency on here to paint anything to with election rules as those nasty Republicans looking to disenfranchise voters while the saintly Democrats do their best for justice.
The simple fact is Mike's argument would have a lot more effect if, just once, it was recognised what the Democrats are doing to weight the system in their favour or the actions they took before November were acknowledged. Courts have ruled in several states that Democrat Secretaries of State overstepped their boundaries in changing rules without the authorisation of legislatures that had the proper authority or, as in PA, Democrat-controlled courts giving themselves powers which they didn't have. And that is without getting onto the monstrosity that is HR1, which is a blatant attempt at rigging.
We saw this the other day on Nancy Pelosi's blatant attempts to overturn the IA-2 result and hand the seat to the Democrat loser. People like @rpjs who would wet their pants at the signs of Trump doing anything, come out "well, under the Constitution, the House has the authority to change the result". Yeah? Well, under the Constitution, Republican controlled state legislatures could have sent their own delegates. What would have been the screams on here if the Republican did that and cited the Constitution.
So normally I would look at what Georgia has done and said "this is not the route". But you know what, f**k it, I'm sick of the hypocrisy and preaching so I say bring it on and I hope every Republican state does this sort of thing. It's the only way the Democrats will ever learn.
Any hypocrisy from the Dems would not be right. But don't we learn as children that two wrongs don't make a right? To be the bigger men (and women)?
Mr. JS, it's the same sort of people who think abolishing cash is a smart idea.
I would also like to give the Lib Dems some rare praise for their stance on this.
Stockholm Syndrome is rubbish.
Abolishing cash is a great idea.
It would also be a great victory in the war on drugs.
Simple rule: if you can't choose to live and exist without a smartphone (even if it's less convenient, and a tad more expensive) then you're not really free.
Abolishing cash would be like abolishing books.
Of course you're free, smartphones give you even more liberty.
Lockdown has been a challenge yet thanks to technology I've been able to talk to friends all over the world for nothing.
Would you prefer to contact them via post?
Smartphone's are a personal tracking device, plus they need power and juice to work.
I always want to have an off-the-grid option. And, yes, many friends are touched with a personal letter - we all don't write enough of them.
I am a man of letters.
I'm talking about the friend going through a rough spell in Ireland, our WhatsApp group, as well individually, can give him immediate support in a way a letter cannot.
A smartphone allows me to do things quicker and easier, allowing me more quality time.
I'm not saying smartphones aren't convenient or useful but I don't want them to take over the world and be the only way one can live.
Thankfully, I'm not alone. Kindles were all the rage a few years ago but a lot of people have now gone back to proper traditional books now and I think that balance is healthy.
It used to be a huge pain - taking up to a dozen books on a plane (yes, really - when flying to Hong Kong there is a lot of reading to be done). And on the tube. Kindles were a blessing. Now, I generally prefer books. Some demand to be in book form (The Mirror & The Light, The Testaments, etc).
Me the same. I love the feel of books, unread and half read. Scattered across the bed.
Apparently Mao was the same. Had a huge bed, but when it wasn’t also occupied by teenage dancing girls it was stacked with books, which he would read until 3pm. Then finally rise. I am very similar tho I try not to starve Manchuria
I too love the feel of books, but sadly the way my eyes are going it's much easier to use the Kindle app with the text big enough for someone with normal vision to read it from about half a mile away.
I reckon I’ve got about another decade of pretending-I-don’t-need-glasses, until I finally have to accept I do
One of my last memories pre-lockdown was holding a restaurant menu in a dimly lit room about a yard from my face. The only way I could decipher it
Glasses aren't a particular problem until one needs hearing aids as well, and then a facemark. There isn't room behind the ears!
I suspect that if I had my time again I'd go for contact lenses!
Laser correction works amazingly well. I had it done 20 years ago and still going well. And it's got much better since then.
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
The British monarchy is 1500 years old...
A few days ago someone was saying the monarchy was 1000 years old, now it's gained another 500!
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
I know what you mean but the analogy is inexact. The British monarchy is 1500 years old, it goes right back to Athelstan, Alfred, Offa the Great, and the god Woden. It is woven through British - English, welsh. Scottish and Irish - history, since the mists of the Dark Ages. It has endured invasion and conquest, civil wars, regicide, world war, and several plagues. And it is still there. Closely wound with every national institution, the embodiment of the nation - in a glorious medley of fine music, ancient tradition, religious belief, scurrilous gossip, grand architecture, sexual misbehavior and really beautiful gardens.
Destroying it to replace it with a republic would be like tearing down a magnificent Gothic cathedral to make way for much needed office space. There may be a practical argument, but it just isn’t going to happen. The cathedral reassures in its endurance, even if bits of it keep falling off.
The EU commission is not so ancient or beloved. Tho I agree it may survive out of sheer apathy.
I think you've fallen for the mythology, common to all nationalist ideologies, that the institutions and customs of their "nation" are ancient, eternal even. The British monarchy is only a couple of years older than the EU commission.
While I agree that nothing is eternal, indeed we were cutting our King’s head off a century and a half before the French got round to it, HM the Q is not “the monarchy”- she’s the monarch. Monarch is to monarchy what president is to presidency. One is an office holder, the other the office. The office of monarch here is very very old indeed.
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
I know what you mean but the analogy is inexact. The British monarchy is 1500 years old, it goes right back to Athelstan, Alfred, Offa the Great, and the god Woden. It is woven through British - English, welsh. Scottish and Irish - history, since the mists of the Dark Ages. It has endured invasion and conquest, civil wars, regicide, world war, and several plagues. And it is still there. Closely wound with every national institution, the embodiment of the nation - in a glorious medley of fine music, ancient tradition, religious belief, scurrilous gossip, grand architecture, sexual misbehavior and really beautiful gardens.
Destroying it to replace it with a republic would be like tearing down a magnificent Gothic cathedral to make way for much needed office space. There may be a practical argument, but it just isn’t going to happen. The cathedral reassures in its endurance, even if bits of it keep falling off.
The EU commission is not so ancient or beloved. Tho I agree it may survive out of sheer apathy.
I think you've fallen for the mythology, common to all nationalist ideologies, that the institutions and customs of their "nation" are ancient, eternal even. The British monarchy is only a couple of years older than the EU commission.
It's the infantile nature of protesting people not adhering to your faith (or your interpretation of your faith) that always gets me.
People of faith include some of the very best people I know, but theyll come across a lot of things contrary to their faith every damn day and most accept that. Perhaps theyll even proselytize to change things, no problem.
If your faith is strong it can survive the existence of non believers, infidels and apostates without your mind blowing, even if they offend you.
At least in terms of the Christian Wars of Religion following the Reformation, and persecution of heretics before, you are missing the point.
It's not the individual's faith that is threatened by a non-believer. It's the very security and survival of the community, because the devoutly religious believed that God will punish them collectively for the sin of the heretic.
If you believe that famine is a punishment from God, then it's easy to blame the heretic for that punishment.
I do not know where Islam is on the continuum of being able to tolerate heresy. It seems considerably closer to the 17th century then Christianity - but toleration is surprisingly recent for Christianity too, and arguably an incomplete process.
(With apologies to David Crowther of the History of England for anything that I've mangled from his podcasts)
I'm certainly not missing the point in the slightest, because I'm not talking about how people might reasonably feel about the security and survival of their religious community in the past when the material stakes were much higher, and historic tolerances, I am talking about now.
The history of it all is fascinating, but now is not then. Someone of a particular faith in this country is not in danger from the majority not sharing their views. They might still feel a general imperative that all should share their faith, hence they can proselytize, but neither they nor their community are threatened in how they practice their faith and have no grounds, none, to impose the restrictions of their own faith of their community on to others.
And that is what it is. They cannot impose a faith or its restrictions. And they try to present that as being under attack.
But most people of the major faiths in this country seem to get by just fine knowing there are people who do not share their faith, and that some of what others believe and so will offend them. They will seek to change the behaviour of others as a result. And that is totally fine by me.
What is not fine, is pretending their community is imperrilled by the actions of others not following their precepts.
In the Batley case, though, wasn't the teacher involved somewhat disrespectful to the Prophet? I don't think the vast majority of people object to children being taught about the various faiths practised in this country.
As far as Muslims are concerned just showing an image of Muhammad is considered blasphemy. It is ludicrous that they should be able to impose that view on others, particularly in an educational environment.
Asda store workers may have won this battle in their long running equal pay claim - but the war is far from over.
The Supreme Court has ruled that for the purposes of equal pay the work of the mainly male distribution workers can be compared to the mainly female shop floor workers.
But next they need to prove their work is of equal value - in terms of skills and training.
And finally that gender is the key reason that their pay is different.
I find this story utterly bizarre. If the work is the same value, why don’t the women apply for warehouse jobs?
I’ll tell you why, the jobs are not the same and it’s much nicer working in a heated/air conditioned supermarket than in a freezing cold/boiling hot warehouse.
Mr. JS, it's the same sort of people who think abolishing cash is a smart idea.
I would also like to give the Lib Dems some rare praise for their stance on this.
Stockholm Syndrome is rubbish.
Abolishing cash is a great idea.
It would also be a great victory in the war on drugs.
Simple rule: if you can't choose to live and exist without a smartphone (even if it's less convenient, and a tad more expensive) then you're not really free.
Abolishing cash would be like abolishing books.
Of course you're free, smartphones give you even more liberty.
Lockdown has been a challenge yet thanks to technology I've been able to talk to friends all over the world for nothing.
Would you prefer to contact them via post?
Smartphone's are a personal tracking device, plus they need power and juice to work.
I always want to have an off-the-grid option. And, yes, many friends are touched with a personal letter - we all don't write enough of them.
I am a man of letters.
I'm talking about the friend going through a rough spell in Ireland, our WhatsApp group, as well individually, can give him immediate support in a way a letter cannot.
A smartphone allows me to do things quicker and easier, allowing me more quality time.
I'm not saying smartphones aren't convenient or useful but I don't want them to take over the world and be the only way one can live.
Thankfully, I'm not alone. Kindles were all the rage a few years ago but a lot of people have now gone back to proper traditional books now and I think that balance is healthy.
It used to be a huge pain - taking up to a dozen books on a plane (yes, really - when flying to Hong Kong there is a lot of reading to be done). And on the tube. Kindles were a blessing. Now, I generally prefer books. Some demand to be in book form (The Mirror & The Light, The Testaments, etc).
Me the same. I love the feel of books, unread and half read. Scattered across the bed.
Apparently Mao was the same. Had a huge bed, but when it wasn’t also occupied by teenage dancing girls it was stacked with books, which he would read until 3pm. Then finally rise. I am very similar tho I try not to starve Manchuria
I too love the feel of books, but sadly the way my eyes are going it's much easier to use the Kindle app with the text big enough for someone with normal vision to read it from about half a mile away.
I reckon I’ve got about another decade of pretending-I-don’t-need-glasses, until I finally have to accept I do
One of my last memories pre-lockdown was holding a restaurant menu in a dimly lit room about a yard from my face. The only way I could decipher it
Glasses aren't a particular problem until one needs hearing aids as well, and then a facemark. There isn't room behind the ears!
I suspect that if I had my time again I'd go for contact lenses!
Laser correction works amazingly well. I had it done 20 years ago and still going well. And it's got much better since then.
Good point. One of my son's had it done some years ago and he's been fine ever since.
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
I know what you mean but the analogy is inexact. The British monarchy is 1500 years old, it goes right back to Athelstan, Alfred, Offa the Great, and the god Woden. It is woven through British - English, welsh. Scottish and Irish - history, since the mists of the Dark Ages. It has endured invasion and conquest, civil wars, regicide, world war, and several plagues. And it is still there. Closely wound with every national institution, the embodiment of the nation - in a glorious medley of fine music, ancient tradition, religious belief, scurrilous gossip, grand architecture, sexual misbehavior and really beautiful gardens.
Destroying it to replace it with a republic would be like tearing down a magnificent Gothic cathedral to make way for much needed office space. There may be a practical argument, but it just isn’t going to happen. The cathedral reassures in its endurance, even if bits of it keep falling off.
The EU commission is not so ancient or beloved. Tho I agree it may survive out of sheer apathy.
I think you've fallen for the mythology, common to all nationalist ideologies, that the institutions and customs of their "nation" are ancient, eternal even. The British monarchy is only a couple of years older than the EU commission.
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
I know what you mean but the analogy is inexact. The British monarchy is 1500 years old, it goes right back to Athelstan, Alfred, Offa the Great, and the god Woden. It is woven through British - English, welsh. Scottish and Irish - history, since the mists of the Dark Ages. It has endured invasion and conquest, civil wars, regicide, world war, and several plagues. And it is still there. Closely wound with every national institution, the embodiment of the nation - in a glorious medley of fine music, ancient tradition, religious belief, scurrilous gossip, grand architecture, sexual misbehavior and really beautiful gardens.
Destroying it to replace it with a republic would be like tearing down a magnificent Gothic cathedral to make way for much needed office space. There may be a practical argument, but it just isn’t going to happen. The cathedral reassures in its endurance, even if bits of it keep falling off.
The EU commission is not so ancient or beloved. Tho I agree it may survive out of sheer apathy.
I think you've fallen for the mythology, common to all nationalist ideologies, that the institutions and customs of their "nation" are ancient, eternal even. The British monarchy is only a couple of years older than the EU commission.
Lol, what? Our current monarch alone has reigned longer than the EU Commission has been in existence!
Strange I can remember the Queen's coronation in 1953
It's the infantile nature of protesting people not adhering to your faith (or your interpretation of your faith) that always gets me.
People of faith include some of the very best people I know, but theyll come across a lot of things contrary to their faith every damn day and most accept that. Perhaps theyll even proselytize to change things, no problem.
If your faith is strong it can survive the existence of non believers, infidels and apostates without your mind blowing, even if they offend you.
At least in terms of the Christian Wars of Religion following the Reformation, and persecution of heretics before, you are missing the point.
It's not the individual's faith that is threatened by a non-believer. It's the very security and survival of the community, because the devoutly religious believed that God will punish them collectively for the sin of the heretic.
If you believe that famine is a punishment from God, then it's easy to blame the heretic for that punishment.
I do not know where Islam is on the continuum of being able to tolerate heresy. It seems considerably closer to the 17th century then Christianity - but toleration is surprisingly recent for Christianity too, and arguably an incomplete process.
(With apologies to David Crowther of the History of England for anything that I've mangled from his podcasts)
I'm certainly not missing the point in the slightest, because I'm not talking about how people might reasonably feel about the security and survival of their religious community in the past when the material stakes were much higher, and historic tolerances, I am talking about now.
The history of it all is fascinating, but now is not then. Someone of a particular faith in this country is not in danger from the majority not sharing their views. They might still feel a general imperative that all should share their faith, hence they can proselytize, but neither they nor their community are threatened in how they practice their faith and have no grounds, none, to impose the restrictions of their own faith of their community on to others.
And that is what it is. They cannot impose a faith or its restrictions. And they try to present that as being under attack.
But most people of the major faiths in this country seem to get by just fine knowing there are people who do not share their faith, and that some of what others believe and so will offend them. They will seek to change the behaviour of others as a result. And that is totally fine by me.
What is not fine, is pretending their community is imperrilled by the actions of others not following their precepts.
In the Batley case, though, wasn't the teacher involved somewhat disrespectful to the Prophet? I don't think the vast majority of people object to children being taught about the various faiths practised in this country.
As far as Muslims are concerned just showing an image of Muhammad is considered blasphemy. It is ludicrous that they should be able to impose that view on others, particularly in an educational environment.
My other half (who is involved in education) realised that one of her powerpoints delivered during lockdown is to a video in which censorship of Charlie Hebdo is discussed with the infamous front page repeatedly shown in the video.
It’s not as if the pinch point for 12% of global trade just got blocked, or anything like that.
Yeah, but I'd be surprised if much wood pulp is travelling through the Suez. Always ready to be proved wrong.
Not sure whether the ships used to transport wood pulp are the same as used for the trade through Suez, but if everything takes an extra ten days in each direction while the canal is closed then less stuff overall will be transported. Maybe that would be less wood pulp on a different route with the ships diverted to serve the Suez trade.
Not that I'm concerned. We still have months of our Brexit stockpile.
There isn't a special class of goods or ships that make up "the Suez trade." Why would there be, and if there were, why should woodchip be excluded from it?
It's the infantile nature of protesting people not adhering to your faith (or your interpretation of your faith) that always gets me.
People of faith include some of the very best people I know, but theyll come across a lot of things contrary to their faith every damn day and most accept that. Perhaps theyll even proselytize to change things, no problem.
If your faith is strong it can survive the existence of non believers, infidels and apostates without your mind blowing, even if they offend you.
At least in terms of the Christian Wars of Religion following the Reformation, and persecution of heretics before, you are missing the point.
It's not the individual's faith that is threatened by a non-believer. It's the very security and survival of the community, because the devoutly religious believed that God will punish them collectively for the sin of the heretic.
If you believe that famine is a punishment from God, then it's easy to blame the heretic for that punishment.
I do not know where Islam is on the continuum of being able to tolerate heresy. It seems considerably closer to the 17th century then Christianity - but toleration is surprisingly recent for Christianity too, and arguably an incomplete process.
(With apologies to David Crowther of the History of England for anything that I've mangled from his podcasts)
I'm certainly not missing the point in the slightest, because I'm not talking about how people might reasonably feel about the security and survival of their religious community in the past when the material stakes were much higher, and historic tolerances, I am talking about now.
The history of it all is fascinating, but now is not then. Someone of a particular faith in this country is not in danger from the majority not sharing their views. They might still feel a general imperative that all should share their faith, hence they can proselytize, but neither they nor their community are threatened in how they practice their faith and have no grounds, none, to impose the restrictions of their own faith of their community on to others.
And that is what it is. They cannot impose a faith or its restrictions. And they try to present that as being under attack.
But most people of the major faiths in this country seem to get by just fine knowing there are people who do not share their faith, and that some of what others believe and so will offend them. They will seek to change the behaviour of others as a result. And that is totally fine by me.
What is not fine, is pretending their community is imperrilled by the actions of others not following their precepts.
In the Batley case, though, wasn't the teacher involved somewhat disrespectful to the Prophet? I don't think the vast majority of people object to children being taught about the various faiths practised in this country.
It's never about the vast majority, it's about the minority, which still needs resisting. If the teacher was disrespectful that would not be particularly professional (though what constitutes showing approprirate respect to, say, Zoroaster, or Joseph Smith?), but the issue is around the reactions, not the instigating event.
Because sometimes its just showing a picture, sometimes its about disrespect etc, but the response of protesting and claiming victimhood as a cover to impose values is very very rarely proportionate to the instigating event.
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
I know what you mean but the analogy is inexact. The British monarchy is 1500 years old, it goes right back to Athelstan, Alfred, Offa the Great, and the god Woden. It is woven through British - English, welsh. Scottish and Irish - history, since the mists of the Dark Ages. It has endured invasion and conquest, civil wars, regicide, world war, and several plagues. And it is still there. Closely wound with every national institution, the embodiment of the nation - in a glorious medley of fine music, ancient tradition, religious belief, scurrilous gossip, grand architecture, sexual misbehavior and really beautiful gardens.
Destroying it to replace it with a republic would be like tearing down a magnificent Gothic cathedral to make way for much needed office space. There may be a practical argument, but it just isn’t going to happen. The cathedral reassures in its endurance, even if bits of it keep falling off.
The EU commission is not so ancient or beloved. Tho I agree it may survive out of sheer apathy.
I think you've fallen for the mythology, common to all nationalist ideologies, that the institutions and customs of their "nation" are ancient, eternal even. The British monarchy is only a couple of years older than the EU commission.
The British monarchy is only seventy years old?
I was being generous. If you want to say that the current institution is the same as that of Athelstan, then you have to accept the European Commission is the same as the ancient Roman consuls, so the EU commission is quite a bit older than the British monarchy - on Leon's terms at least!
It's the infantile nature of protesting people not adhering to your faith (or your interpretation of your faith) that always gets me.
People of faith include some of the very best people I know, but theyll come across a lot of things contrary to their faith every damn day and most accept that. Perhaps theyll even proselytize to change things, no problem.
If your faith is strong it can survive the existence of non believers, infidels and apostates without your mind blowing, even if they offend you.
At least in terms of the Christian Wars of Religion following the Reformation, and persecution of heretics before, you are missing the point.
It's not the individual's faith that is threatened by a non-believer. It's the very security and survival of the community, because the devoutly religious believed that God will punish them collectively for the sin of the heretic.
If you believe that famine is a punishment from God, then it's easy to blame the heretic for that punishment.
I do not know where Islam is on the continuum of being able to tolerate heresy. It seems considerably closer to the 17th century then Christianity - but toleration is surprisingly recent for Christianity too, and arguably an incomplete process.
(With apologies to David Crowther of the History of England for anything that I've mangled from his podcasts)
I'm certainly not missing the point in the slightest, because I'm not talking about how people might reasonably feel about the security and survival of their religious community in the past when the material stakes were much higher, and historic tolerances, I am talking about now.
The history of it all is fascinating, but now is not then. Someone of a particular faith in this country is not in danger from the majority not sharing their views. They might still feel a general imperative that all should share their faith, hence they can proselytize, but neither they nor their community are threatened in how they practice their faith and have no grounds, none, to impose the restrictions of their own faith of their community on to others.
And that is what it is. They cannot impose a faith or its restrictions. And they try to present that as being under attack.
But most people of the major faiths in this country seem to get by just fine knowing there are people who do not share their faith, and that some of what others believe and so will offend them. They will seek to change the behaviour of others as a result. And that is totally fine by me.
What is not fine, is pretending their community is imperrilled by the actions of others not following their precepts.
In the Batley case, though, wasn't the teacher involved somewhat disrespectful to the Prophet? I don't think the vast majority of people object to children being taught about the various faiths practised in this country.
As far as Muslims are concerned just showing an image of Muhammad is considered blasphemy. It is ludicrous that they should be able to impose that view on others, particularly in an educational environment.
Explaining that is, in itself, part of the educational experience. Does it matter what a particular prophet in any religion looks like, and anyway, how do we know?
Asda store workers may have won this battle in their long running equal pay claim - but the war is far from over.
The Supreme Court has ruled that for the purposes of equal pay the work of the mainly male distribution workers can be compared to the mainly female shop floor workers.
But next they need to prove their work is of equal value - in terms of skills and training.
And finally that gender is the key reason that their pay is different.
I find this story utterly bizarre. If the work is the same value, why don’t the women apply for warehouse jobs?
I’ll tell you why, the jobs are not the same and it’s much nicer working in a heated/air conditioned supermarket than in a freezing cold/boiling hot warehouse.
This nonsense filtered through to local councils years ago. Dinner (lunch) ladies paid less than decorators... Only possible reason could be discrimination. The whole concept of supply and demand seemed to be ignored.
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
I know what you mean but the analogy is inexact. The British monarchy is 1500 years old, it goes right back to Athelstan, Alfred, Offa the Great, and the god Woden. It is woven through British - English, welsh. Scottish and Irish - history, since the mists of the Dark Ages. It has endured invasion and conquest, civil wars, regicide, world war, and several plagues. And it is still there. Closely wound with every national institution, the embodiment of the nation - in a glorious medley of fine music, ancient tradition, religious belief, scurrilous gossip, grand architecture, sexual misbehavior and really beautiful gardens.
Destroying it to replace it with a republic would be like tearing down a magnificent Gothic cathedral to make way for much needed office space. There may be a practical argument, but it just isn’t going to happen. The cathedral reassures in its endurance, even if bits of it keep falling off.
The EU commission is not so ancient or beloved. Tho I agree it may survive out of sheer apathy.
I think you've fallen for the mythology, common to all nationalist ideologies, that the institutions and customs of their "nation" are ancient, eternal even. The British monarchy is only a couple of years older than the EU commission.
The British monarchy is only seventy years old?
1603 surely. Which is not even 500 years.
You could define it a myriad of ways to get specific lengths. A generous acceptance of lineages and flexibility on the general principle of (mostly) hereditary or dynastic succession monarchical system will get you to the upper end of the range. Rigid adherence to the latest constitutional settlements cuts it down to less than a hundred.
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
I know what you mean but the analogy is inexact. The British monarchy is 1500 years old, it goes right back to Athelstan, Alfred, Offa the Great, and the god Woden. It is woven through British - English, welsh. Scottish and Irish - history, since the mists of the Dark Ages. It has endured invasion and conquest, civil wars, regicide, world war, and several plagues. And it is still there. Closely wound with every national institution, the embodiment of the nation - in a glorious medley of fine music, ancient tradition, religious belief, scurrilous gossip, grand architecture, sexual misbehavior and really beautiful gardens.
Destroying it to replace it with a republic would be like tearing down a magnificent Gothic cathedral to make way for much needed office space. There may be a practical argument, but it just isn’t going to happen. The cathedral reassures in its endurance, even if bits of it keep falling off.
The EU commission is not so ancient or beloved. Tho I agree it may survive out of sheer apathy.
I think you've fallen for the mythology, common to all nationalist ideologies, that the institutions and customs of their "nation" are ancient, eternal even. The British monarchy is only a couple of years older than the EU commission.
Lol, what? Our current monarch alone has reigned longer than the EU Commission has been in existence!
Strange I can remember the Queen's coronation in 1953
I remember selling programmes in Regent St. that day.
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
I know what you mean but the analogy is inexact. The British monarchy is 1500 years old, it goes right back to Athelstan, Alfred, Offa the Great, and the god Woden. It is woven through British - English, welsh. Scottish and Irish - history, since the mists of the Dark Ages. It has endured invasion and conquest, civil wars, regicide, world war, and several plagues. And it is still there. Closely wound with every national institution, the embodiment of the nation - in a glorious medley of fine music, ancient tradition, religious belief, scurrilous gossip, grand architecture, sexual misbehavior and really beautiful gardens.
Destroying it to replace it with a republic would be like tearing down a magnificent Gothic cathedral to make way for much needed office space. There may be a practical argument, but it just isn’t going to happen. The cathedral reassures in its endurance, even if bits of it keep falling off.
The EU commission is not so ancient or beloved. Tho I agree it may survive out of sheer apathy.
I think you've fallen for the mythology, common to all nationalist ideologies, that the institutions and customs of their "nation" are ancient, eternal even. The British monarchy is only a couple of years older than the EU commission.
The British monarchy is only seventy years old?
I was being generous. If you want to say that the current institution is the same as that of Athelstan, then you have to accept the European Commission is the same as the ancient Roman consuls, so the EU commission is quite a bit older than the British monarchy - on Leon's terms at least!
The British monarchy goes back to the God Odin, almost certainly, and is thus quasi-divine. No one ever said that of Charles Juncker. The present Queen is the 32nd great granddaughter of Alfred of Wessex
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
I know what you mean but the analogy is inexact. The British monarchy is 1500 years old, it goes right back to Athelstan, Alfred, Offa the Great, and the god Woden. It is woven through British - English, welsh. Scottish and Irish - history, since the mists of the Dark Ages. It has endured invasion and conquest, civil wars, regicide, world war, and several plagues. And it is still there. Closely wound with every national institution, the embodiment of the nation - in a glorious medley of fine music, ancient tradition, religious belief, scurrilous gossip, grand architecture, sexual misbehavior and really beautiful gardens.
Destroying it to replace it with a republic would be like tearing down a magnificent Gothic cathedral to make way for much needed office space. There may be a practical argument, but it just isn’t going to happen. The cathedral reassures in its endurance, even if bits of it keep falling off.
The EU commission is not so ancient or beloved. Tho I agree it may survive out of sheer apathy.
I think you've fallen for the mythology, common to all nationalist ideologies, that the institutions and customs of their "nation" are ancient, eternal even. The British monarchy is only a couple of years older than the EU commission.
The British monarchy is only seventy years old?
I was being generous. If you want to say that the current institution is the same as that of Athelstan, then you have to accept the European Commission is the same as the ancient Roman consuls, so the EU commission is quite a bit older than the British monarchy - on Leon's terms at least!
How? There is a direct and unbroken* lineage of monarchs dating back ~1500 years.
How do you trace the lineage from the Commission to the consuls?
* Cromwell broke it, but then it was restored to Charles II.
Asda store workers may have won this battle in their long running equal pay claim - but the war is far from over.
The Supreme Court has ruled that for the purposes of equal pay the work of the mainly male distribution workers can be compared to the mainly female shop floor workers.
But next they need to prove their work is of equal value - in terms of skills and training.
And finally that gender is the key reason that their pay is different.
I find this story utterly bizarre. If the work is the same value, why don’t the women apply for warehouse jobs?
I’ll tell you why, the jobs are not the same and it’s much nicer working in a heated/air conditioned supermarket than in a freezing cold/boiling hot warehouse.
The cost if eventually won is estimated to be 8 billion to UK supermarkets
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
I know what you mean but the analogy is inexact. The British monarchy is 1500 years old, it goes right back to Athelstan, Alfred, Offa the Great, and the god Woden. It is woven through British - English, welsh. Scottish and Irish - history, since the mists of the Dark Ages. It has endured invasion and conquest, civil wars, regicide, world war, and several plagues. And it is still there. Closely wound with every national institution, the embodiment of the nation - in a glorious medley of fine music, ancient tradition, religious belief, scurrilous gossip, grand architecture, sexual misbehavior and really beautiful gardens.
Destroying it to replace it with a republic would be like tearing down a magnificent Gothic cathedral to make way for much needed office space. There may be a practical argument, but it just isn’t going to happen. The cathedral reassures in its endurance, even if bits of it keep falling off.
The EU commission is not so ancient or beloved. Tho I agree it may survive out of sheer apathy.
I think you've fallen for the mythology, common to all nationalist ideologies, that the institutions and customs of their "nation" are ancient, eternal even. The British monarchy is only a couple of years older than the EU commission.
The British monarchy is only seventy years old?
1603 surely. Which is not even 500 years.
You wouldn't trace its roots back to Kenneth MacAlpin in 843?
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
I know what you mean but the analogy is inexact. The British monarchy is 1500 years old, it goes right back to Athelstan, Alfred, Offa the Great, and the god Woden. It is woven through British - English, welsh. Scottish and Irish - history, since the mists of the Dark Ages. It has endured invasion and conquest, civil wars, regicide, world war, and several plagues. And it is still there. Closely wound with every national institution, the embodiment of the nation - in a glorious medley of fine music, ancient tradition, religious belief, scurrilous gossip, grand architecture, sexual misbehavior and really beautiful gardens.
Destroying it to replace it with a republic would be like tearing down a magnificent Gothic cathedral to make way for much needed office space. There may be a practical argument, but it just isn’t going to happen. The cathedral reassures in its endurance, even if bits of it keep falling off.
The EU commission is not so ancient or beloved. Tho I agree it may survive out of sheer apathy.
I think you've fallen for the mythology, common to all nationalist ideologies, that the institutions and customs of their "nation" are ancient, eternal even. The British monarchy is only a couple of years older than the EU commission.
The British monarchy is only seventy years old?
1603 surely. Which is not even 500 years.
You could define it a myriad of ways to get specific lengths. A generous acceptance of lineages and flexibility on the general principle of (mostly) hereditary or dynastic succession monarchical system will get you to the upper end of the range. Rigid adherence to the latest constitutional settlements cuts it down to less than a hundred.
It's the infantile nature of protesting people not adhering to your faith (or your interpretation of your faith) that always gets me.
People of faith include some of the very best people I know, but theyll come across a lot of things contrary to their faith every damn day and most accept that. Perhaps theyll even proselytize to change things, no problem.
If your faith is strong it can survive the existence of non believers, infidels and apostates without your mind blowing, even if they offend you.
At least in terms of the Christian Wars of Religion following the Reformation, and persecution of heretics before, you are missing the point.
It's not the individual's faith that is threatened by a non-believer. It's the very security and survival of the community, because the devoutly religious believed that God will punish them collectively for the sin of the heretic.
If you believe that famine is a punishment from God, then it's easy to blame the heretic for that punishment.
I do not know where Islam is on the continuum of being able to tolerate heresy. It seems considerably closer to the 17th century then Christianity - but toleration is surprisingly recent for Christianity too, and arguably an incomplete process.
(With apologies to David Crowther of the History of England for anything that I've mangled from his podcasts)
I'm certainly not missing the point in the slightest, because I'm not talking about how people might reasonably feel about the security and survival of their religious community in the past when the material stakes were much higher, and historic tolerances, I am talking about now.
The history of it all is fascinating, but now is not then. Someone of a particular faith in this country is not in danger from the majority not sharing their views. They might still feel a general imperative that all should share their faith, hence they can proselytize, but neither they nor their community are threatened in how they practice their faith and have no grounds, none, to impose the restrictions of their own faith of their community on to others.
And that is what it is. They cannot impose a faith or its restrictions. And they try to present that as being under attack.
But most people of the major faiths in this country seem to get by just fine knowing there are people who do not share their faith, and that some of what others believe and so will offend them. They will seek to change the behaviour of others as a result. And that is totally fine by me.
What is not fine, is pretending their community is imperrilled by the actions of others not following their precepts.
In the Batley case, though, wasn't the teacher involved somewhat disrespectful to the Prophet? I don't think the vast majority of people object to children being taught about the various faiths practised in this country.
As far as Muslims are concerned just showing an image of Muhammad is considered blasphemy. It is ludicrous that they should be able to impose that view on others, particularly in an educational environment.
Explaining that is, in itself, part of the educational experience. Does it matter what a particular prophet in any religion looks like, and anyway, how do we know?
It certainly does matter what religious figures looked like if that forms part of a lot of religious imagery, and the fact that at various times images of the Prophet may have been more accepted in various different places is a an even more interesting matter for debate and discussion given the fact it is not generally considered acceptable by most of the faith.
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
I know what you mean but the analogy is inexact. The British monarchy is 1500 years old, it goes right back to Athelstan, Alfred, Offa the Great, and the god Woden. It is woven through British - English, welsh. Scottish and Irish - history, since the mists of the Dark Ages. It has endured invasion and conquest, civil wars, regicide, world war, and several plagues. And it is still there. Closely wound with every national institution, the embodiment of the nation - in a glorious medley of fine music, ancient tradition, religious belief, scurrilous gossip, grand architecture, sexual misbehavior and really beautiful gardens.
Destroying it to replace it with a republic would be like tearing down a magnificent Gothic cathedral to make way for much needed office space. There may be a practical argument, but it just isn’t going to happen. The cathedral reassures in its endurance, even if bits of it keep falling off.
The EU commission is not so ancient or beloved. Tho I agree it may survive out of sheer apathy.
I think you've fallen for the mythology, common to all nationalist ideologies, that the institutions and customs of their "nation" are ancient, eternal even. The British monarchy is only a couple of years older than the EU commission.
The British monarchy is only seventy years old?
I was being generous. If you want to say that the current institution is the same as that of Athelstan, then you have to accept the European Commission is the same as the ancient Roman consuls, so the EU commission is quite a bit older than the British monarchy - on Leon's terms at least!
The British monarchy goes back to the God Odin, almost certainly, and is thus quasi-divine. No one ever said that of Charles Juncker. The present Queen is the 32nd great granddaughter of Alfred of Wessex
How does the bloodline jump from the Saxons to the Normans?
It's the infantile nature of protesting people not adhering to your faith (or your interpretation of your faith) that always gets me.
People of faith include some of the very best people I know, but theyll come across a lot of things contrary to their faith every damn day and most accept that. Perhaps theyll even proselytize to change things, no problem.
If your faith is strong it can survive the existence of non believers, infidels and apostates without your mind blowing, even if they offend you.
At least in terms of the Christian Wars of Religion following the Reformation, and persecution of heretics before, you are missing the point.
It's not the individual's faith that is threatened by a non-believer. It's the very security and survival of the community, because the devoutly religious believed that God will punish them collectively for the sin of the heretic.
If you believe that famine is a punishment from God, then it's easy to blame the heretic for that punishment.
I do not know where Islam is on the continuum of being able to tolerate heresy. It seems considerably closer to the 17th century then Christianity - but toleration is surprisingly recent for Christianity too, and arguably an incomplete process.
(With apologies to David Crowther of the History of England for anything that I've mangled from his podcasts)
I'm certainly not missing the point in the slightest, because I'm not talking about how people might reasonably feel about the security and survival of their religious community in the past when the material stakes were much higher, and historic tolerances, I am talking about now.
The history of it all is fascinating, but now is not then. Someone of a particular faith in this country is not in danger from the majority not sharing their views. They might still feel a general imperative that all should share their faith, hence they can proselytize, but neither they nor their community are threatened in how they practice their faith and have no grounds, none, to impose the restrictions of their own faith of their community on to others.
And that is what it is. They cannot impose a faith or its restrictions. And they try to present that as being under attack.
But most people of the major faiths in this country seem to get by just fine knowing there are people who do not share their faith, and that some of what others believe and so will offend them. They will seek to change the behaviour of others as a result. And that is totally fine by me.
What is not fine, is pretending their community is imperrilled by the actions of others not following their precepts.
In the Batley case, though, wasn't the teacher involved somewhat disrespectful to the Prophet? I don't think the vast majority of people object to children being taught about the various faiths practised in this country.
As far as Muslims are concerned just showing an image of Muhammad is considered blasphemy. It is ludicrous that they should be able to impose that view on others, particularly in an educational environment.
Well, as others have pointed out, images of Mohammed are quite common in some parts of Islam. A better way to introduce ideas about images of Mohammed in a classroom, if you wanted to do that, would be to take eg a Shia image of Mohammed, and perhaps link to arguments about images in Christianity. There are often statues with smashed faces in English churches if you want to bring in a bit of local history.
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
I know what you mean but the analogy is inexact. The British monarchy is 1500 years old, it goes right back to Athelstan, Alfred, Offa the Great, and the god Woden. It is woven through British - English, welsh. Scottish and Irish - history, since the mists of the Dark Ages. It has endured invasion and conquest, civil wars, regicide, world war, and several plagues. And it is still there. Closely wound with every national institution, the embodiment of the nation - in a glorious medley of fine music, ancient tradition, religious belief, scurrilous gossip, grand architecture, sexual misbehavior and really beautiful gardens.
Destroying it to replace it with a republic would be like tearing down a magnificent Gothic cathedral to make way for much needed office space. There may be a practical argument, but it just isn’t going to happen. The cathedral reassures in its endurance, even if bits of it keep falling off.
The EU commission is not so ancient or beloved. Tho I agree it may survive out of sheer apathy.
I think you've fallen for the mythology, common to all nationalist ideologies, that the institutions and customs of their "nation" are ancient, eternal even. The British monarchy is only a couple of years older than the EU commission.
The British monarchy is only seventy years old?
1603 surely. Which is not even 500 years.
You wouldn't trace its roots back to Kenneth MacAlpin in 843?
It’s not as if the pinch point for 12% of global trade just got blocked, or anything like that.
Yeah, but I'd be surprised if much wood pulp is travelling through the Suez. Always ready to be proved wrong.
Not sure whether the ships used to transport wood pulp are the same as used for the trade through Suez, but if everything takes an extra ten days in each direction while the canal is closed then less stuff overall will be transported. Maybe that would be less wood pulp on a different route with the ships diverted to serve the Suez trade.
Not that I'm concerned. We still have months of our Brexit stockpile.
There isn't a special class of goods or ships that make up "the Suez trade." Why would there be, and if there were, why should woodchip be excluded from it?
Well clearly ships that carry wood cannot easily start carrying oil.
I know that oil, gas and container ships use Suez.
I do not know whether there are ships that take wood through, or are similar. That's why I raised the point of the ships.
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
The British monarchy is 1500 years old...
A few days ago someone was saying the monarchy was 1000 years old, now it's gained another 500!
Do you have a start date in mind?
Yes, about 500AD, when the first Anglo-Saxon kingdoms emerged from the fog of post-Roman darkness. There may even have been some intercourse with more ancient British tribes, making the monarchy even older, but this is unprovable. 1500 years with a possible descent from the Saxon god of war seems a reasonable hypothesis
Asda store workers may have won this battle in their long running equal pay claim - but the war is far from over.
The Supreme Court has ruled that for the purposes of equal pay the work of the mainly male distribution workers can be compared to the mainly female shop floor workers.
But next they need to prove their work is of equal value - in terms of skills and training.
And finally that gender is the key reason that their pay is different.
I find this story utterly bizarre. If the work is the same value, why don’t the women apply for warehouse jobs?
I’ll tell you why, the jobs are not the same and it’s much nicer working in a heated/air conditioned supermarket than in a freezing cold/boiling hot warehouse.
This nonsense filtered through to local councils years ago. Dinner (lunch) ladies paid less than decorators... Only possible reason could be discrimination. The whole concept of supply and demand seemed to be ignored.
Its ridiculous.
If shop workers wanted to be paid as warehouse staff then why not apply for a job in the warehouse?
If they were denied work in the warehouse due to their gender that would be sexual discrimination. This is farcical.
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
I know what you mean but the analogy is inexact. The British monarchy is 1500 years old, it goes right back to Athelstan, Alfred, Offa the Great, and the god Woden. It is woven through British - English, welsh. Scottish and Irish - history, since the mists of the Dark Ages. It has endured invasion and conquest, civil wars, regicide, world war, and several plagues. And it is still there. Closely wound with every national institution, the embodiment of the nation - in a glorious medley of fine music, ancient tradition, religious belief, scurrilous gossip, grand architecture, sexual misbehavior and really beautiful gardens.
Destroying it to replace it with a republic would be like tearing down a magnificent Gothic cathedral to make way for much needed office space. There may be a practical argument, but it just isn’t going to happen. The cathedral reassures in its endurance, even if bits of it keep falling off.
The EU commission is not so ancient or beloved. Tho I agree it may survive out of sheer apathy.
I think you've fallen for the mythology, common to all nationalist ideologies, that the institutions and customs of their "nation" are ancient, eternal even. The British monarchy is only a couple of years older than the EU commission.
The British monarchy is only seventy years old?
I was being generous. If you want to say that the current institution is the same as that of Athelstan, then you have to accept the European Commission is the same as the ancient Roman consuls, so the EU commission is quite a bit older than the British monarchy - on Leon's terms at least!
The British monarchy goes back to the God Odin, almost certainly, and is thus quasi-divine. No one ever said that of Charles Juncker. The present Queen is the 32nd great granddaughter of Alfred of Wessex
How does the bloodline jump from the Saxons to the Normans?
Emma of Normandy, I think. Or else via the Scottish crown.
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
I know what you mean but the analogy is inexact. The British monarchy is 1500 years old, it goes right back to Athelstan, Alfred, Offa the Great, and the god Woden. It is woven through British - English, welsh. Scottish and Irish - history, since the mists of the Dark Ages. It has endured invasion and conquest, civil wars, regicide, world war, and several plagues. And it is still there. Closely wound with every national institution, the embodiment of the nation - in a glorious medley of fine music, ancient tradition, religious belief, scurrilous gossip, grand architecture, sexual misbehavior and really beautiful gardens.
Destroying it to replace it with a republic would be like tearing down a magnificent Gothic cathedral to make way for much needed office space. There may be a practical argument, but it just isn’t going to happen. The cathedral reassures in its endurance, even if bits of it keep falling off.
The EU commission is not so ancient or beloved. Tho I agree it may survive out of sheer apathy.
I think you've fallen for the mythology, common to all nationalist ideologies, that the institutions and customs of their "nation" are ancient, eternal even. The British monarchy is only a couple of years older than the EU commission.
The British monarchy is only seventy years old?
I was being generous. If you want to say that the current institution is the same as that of Athelstan, then you have to accept the European Commission is the same as the ancient Roman consuls, so the EU commission is quite a bit older than the British monarchy - on Leon's terms at least!
The British monarchy goes back to the God Odin, almost certainly, and is thus quasi-divine. No one ever said that of Charles Juncker. The present Queen is the 32nd great granddaughter of Alfred of Wessex
How does the bloodline jump from the Saxons to the Normans?
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
I know what you mean but the analogy is inexact. The British monarchy is 1500 years old, it goes right back to Athelstan, Alfred, Offa the Great, and the god Woden. It is woven through British - English, welsh. Scottish and Irish - history, since the mists of the Dark Ages. It has endured invasion and conquest, civil wars, regicide, world war, and several plagues. And it is still there. Closely wound with every national institution, the embodiment of the nation - in a glorious medley of fine music, ancient tradition, religious belief, scurrilous gossip, grand architecture, sexual misbehavior and really beautiful gardens.
Destroying it to replace it with a republic would be like tearing down a magnificent Gothic cathedral to make way for much needed office space. There may be a practical argument, but it just isn’t going to happen. The cathedral reassures in its endurance, even if bits of it keep falling off.
The EU commission is not so ancient or beloved. Tho I agree it may survive out of sheer apathy.
I think you've fallen for the mythology, common to all nationalist ideologies, that the institutions and customs of their "nation" are ancient, eternal even. The British monarchy is only a couple of years older than the EU commission.
The British monarchy is only seventy years old?
I was being generous. If you want to say that the current institution is the same as that of Athelstan, then you have to accept the European Commission is the same as the ancient Roman consuls, so the EU commission is quite a bit older than the British monarchy - on Leon's terms at least!
The British monarchy goes back to the God Odin, almost certainly, and is thus quasi-divine. No one ever said that of Charles Juncker. The present Queen is the 32nd great granddaughter of Alfred of Wessex
How does the bloodline jump from the Saxons to the Normans?
William 1 was first cousin, once removed of Edward the Confessor. He had a legitimate, if not entirely convincing, claim on succession.
"Face masks and social distancing could be in place for another decade, Lord Sumption has claimed.
The former Supreme Court judge warned restrictions on Britons' freedoms could last as long as rationing after the Second World War. He said it was 'politically unrealistic' to expect the Government to backtrack on social controls anytime soon because the public had become so used to them. Lord Sumption suggested Britons had actually started to take comfort in restrictions because they made them feel safe."
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
I know what you mean but the analogy is inexact. The British monarchy is 1500 years old, it goes right back to Athelstan, Alfred, Offa the Great, and the god Woden. It is woven through British - English, welsh. Scottish and Irish - history, since the mists of the Dark Ages. It has endured invasion and conquest, civil wars, regicide, world war, and several plagues. And it is still there. Closely wound with every national institution, the embodiment of the nation - in a glorious medley of fine music, ancient tradition, religious belief, scurrilous gossip, grand architecture, sexual misbehavior and really beautiful gardens.
Destroying it to replace it with a republic would be like tearing down a magnificent Gothic cathedral to make way for much needed office space. There may be a practical argument, but it just isn’t going to happen. The cathedral reassures in its endurance, even if bits of it keep falling off.
The EU commission is not so ancient or beloved. Tho I agree it may survive out of sheer apathy.
I think you've fallen for the mythology, common to all nationalist ideologies, that the institutions and customs of their "nation" are ancient, eternal even. The British monarchy is only a couple of years older than the EU commission.
The British monarchy is only seventy years old?
I was being generous. If you want to say that the current institution is the same as that of Athelstan, then you have to accept the European Commission is the same as the ancient Roman consuls, so the EU commission is quite a bit older than the British monarchy - on Leon's terms at least!
The British monarchy goes back to the God Odin, almost certainly, and is thus quasi-divine. No one ever said that of Charles Juncker. The present Queen is the 32nd great granddaughter of Alfred of Wessex
How does the bloodline jump from the Saxons to the Normans?
William 1 was first cousin, once removed of Edward the Confessor. He had a legitimate, if not entirely convincing, claim on succession.
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
I know what you mean but the analogy is inexact. The British monarchy is 1500 years old, it goes right back to Athelstan, Alfred, Offa the Great, and the god Woden. It is woven through British - English, welsh. Scottish and Irish - history, since the mists of the Dark Ages. It has endured invasion and conquest, civil wars, regicide, world war, and several plagues. And it is still there. Closely wound with every national institution, the embodiment of the nation - in a glorious medley of fine music, ancient tradition, religious belief, scurrilous gossip, grand architecture, sexual misbehavior and really beautiful gardens.
Destroying it to replace it with a republic would be like tearing down a magnificent Gothic cathedral to make way for much needed office space. There may be a practical argument, but it just isn’t going to happen. The cathedral reassures in its endurance, even if bits of it keep falling off.
The EU commission is not so ancient or beloved. Tho I agree it may survive out of sheer apathy.
I think you've fallen for the mythology, common to all nationalist ideologies, that the institutions and customs of their "nation" are ancient, eternal even. The British monarchy is only a couple of years older than the EU commission.
The British monarchy is only seventy years old?
I was being generous. If you want to say that the current institution is the same as that of Athelstan, then you have to accept the European Commission is the same as the ancient Roman consuls, so the EU commission is quite a bit older than the British monarchy - on Leon's terms at least!
Absurd. There was quite an enormous gap between the two.
It's the infantile nature of protesting people not adhering to your faith (or your interpretation of your faith) that always gets me.
People of faith include some of the very best people I know, but theyll come across a lot of things contrary to their faith every damn day and most accept that. Perhaps theyll even proselytize to change things, no problem.
If your faith is strong it can survive the existence of non believers, infidels and apostates without your mind blowing, even if they offend you.
At least in terms of the Christian Wars of Religion following the Reformation, and persecution of heretics before, you are missing the point.
It's not the individual's faith that is threatened by a non-believer. It's the very security and survival of the community, because the devoutly religious believed that God will punish them collectively for the sin of the heretic.
If you believe that famine is a punishment from God, then it's easy to blame the heretic for that punishment.
I do not know where Islam is on the continuum of being able to tolerate heresy. It seems considerably closer to the 17th century then Christianity - but toleration is surprisingly recent for Christianity too, and arguably an incomplete process.
(With apologies to David Crowther of the History of England for anything that I've mangled from his podcasts)
I'm certainly not missing the point in the slightest, because I'm not talking about how people might reasonably feel about the security and survival of their religious community in the past when the material stakes were much higher, and historic tolerances, I am talking about now.
The history of it all is fascinating, but now is not then. Someone of a particular faith in this country is not in danger from the majority not sharing their views. They might still feel a general imperative that all should share their faith, hence they can proselytize, but neither they nor their community are threatened in how they practice their faith and have no grounds, none, to impose the restrictions of their own faith of their community on to others.
And that is what it is. They cannot impose a faith or its restrictions. And they try to present that as being under attack.
But most people of the major faiths in this country seem to get by just fine knowing there are people who do not share their faith, and that some of what others believe and so will offend them. They will seek to change the behaviour of others as a result. And that is totally fine by me.
What is not fine, is pretending their community is imperrilled by the actions of others not following their precepts.
In the Batley case, though, wasn't the teacher involved somewhat disrespectful to the Prophet? I don't think the vast majority of people object to children being taught about the various faiths practised in this country.
As far as Muslims are concerned just showing an image of Muhammad is considered blasphemy. It is ludicrous that they should be able to impose that view on others, particularly in an educational environment.
Well, as others have pointed out, images of Mohammed are quite common in some parts of Islam. A better way to introduce ideas about images of Mohammed in a classroom, if you wanted to do that, would be to take eg a Shia image of Mohammed, and perhaps link to arguments about images in Christianity. There are often statues with smashed faces in English churches if you want to bring in a bit of local history.
You can of course argue about how it is done. What you (not you personally but those protesting at the moment) cannot do is claim that showing his image should be a sackable offence. Indeed they should have no influence on how children are taught RE at all as long as it is in line with UK law and is factually accurate.
On your point about smashed statues in English churches that is an excellent comparison. Islam is about 400 years out of date.
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
I know what you mean but the analogy is inexact. The British monarchy is 1500 years old, it goes right back to Athelstan, Alfred, Offa the Great, and the god Woden. It is woven through British - English, welsh. Scottish and Irish - history, since the mists of the Dark Ages. It has endured invasion and conquest, civil wars, regicide, world war, and several plagues. And it is still there. Closely wound with every national institution, the embodiment of the nation - in a glorious medley of fine music, ancient tradition, religious belief, scurrilous gossip, grand architecture, sexual misbehavior and really beautiful gardens.
Destroying it to replace it with a republic would be like tearing down a magnificent Gothic cathedral to make way for much needed office space. There may be a practical argument, but it just isn’t going to happen. The cathedral reassures in its endurance, even if bits of it keep falling off.
The EU commission is not so ancient or beloved. Tho I agree it may survive out of sheer apathy.
I think you've fallen for the mythology, common to all nationalist ideologies, that the institutions and customs of their "nation" are ancient, eternal even. The British monarchy is only a couple of years older than the EU commission.
The British monarchy is only seventy years old?
I was being generous. If you want to say that the current institution is the same as that of Athelstan, then you have to accept the European Commission is the same as the ancient Roman consuls, so the EU commission is quite a bit older than the British monarchy - on Leon's terms at least!
The British monarchy goes back to the God Odin, almost certainly, and is thus quasi-divine. No one ever said that of Charles Juncker. The present Queen is the 32nd great granddaughter of Alfred of Wessex
How does the bloodline jump from the Saxons to the Normans?
William 1 was first cousin, once removed of Edward the Confessor. He had a legitimate, if not entirely convincing, claim on succession.
And God was on his side! Or, as my grandfather used to say, "God is on the side of the big battalions" , which I think was a quote from Napoleon
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
I know what you mean but the analogy is inexact. The British monarchy is 1500 years old, it goes right back to Athelstan, Alfred, Offa the Great, and the god Woden. It is woven through British - English, welsh. Scottish and Irish - history, since the mists of the Dark Ages. It has endured invasion and conquest, civil wars, regicide, world war, and several plagues. And it is still there. Closely wound with every national institution, the embodiment of the nation - in a glorious medley of fine music, ancient tradition, religious belief, scurrilous gossip, grand architecture, sexual misbehavior and really beautiful gardens.
Destroying it to replace it with a republic would be like tearing down a magnificent Gothic cathedral to make way for much needed office space. There may be a practical argument, but it just isn’t going to happen. The cathedral reassures in its endurance, even if bits of it keep falling off.
The EU commission is not so ancient or beloved. Tho I agree it may survive out of sheer apathy.
I think you've fallen for the mythology, common to all nationalist ideologies, that the institutions and customs of their "nation" are ancient, eternal even. The British monarchy is only a couple of years older than the EU commission.
The British monarchy is only seventy years old?
I was being generous. If you want to say that the current institution is the same as that of Athelstan, then you have to accept the European Commission is the same as the ancient Roman consuls, so the EU commission is quite a bit older than the British monarchy - on Leon's terms at least!
The British monarchy goes back to the God Odin, almost certainly, and is thus quasi-divine. No one ever said that of Charles Juncker. The present Queen is the 32nd great granddaughter of Alfred of Wessex
How does the bloodline jump from the Saxons to the Normans?
William 1 was first cousin, once removed of Edward the Confessor. He had a legitimate, if not entirely convincing, claim on succession.
Wasn't he a bastard?
So how could he be legitimate?
Not sure that was a total bar back then. Otherwise how did he become Duke of Normandy? Maybe "legitimate" was a poor choice of word. He was related, at a distance, to the Anglo-Saxon kings.
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
I know what you mean but the analogy is inexact. The British monarchy is 1500 years old, it goes right back to Athelstan, Alfred, Offa the Great, and the god Woden. It is woven through British - English, welsh. Scottish and Irish - history, since the mists of the Dark Ages. It has endured invasion and conquest, civil wars, regicide, world war, and several plagues. And it is still there. Closely wound with every national institution, the embodiment of the nation - in a glorious medley of fine music, ancient tradition, religious belief, scurrilous gossip, grand architecture, sexual misbehavior and really beautiful gardens.
Destroying it to replace it with a republic would be like tearing down a magnificent Gothic cathedral to make way for much needed office space. There may be a practical argument, but it just isn’t going to happen. The cathedral reassures in its endurance, even if bits of it keep falling off.
The EU commission is not so ancient or beloved. Tho I agree it may survive out of sheer apathy.
I think you've fallen for the mythology, common to all nationalist ideologies, that the institutions and customs of their "nation" are ancient, eternal even. The British monarchy is only a couple of years older than the EU commission.
The British monarchy is only seventy years old?
That was the last time the monarchy travelled directly down the family tree.
"Face masks and social distancing could be in place for another decade, Lord Sumption has claimed.
The former Supreme Court judge warned restrictions on Britons' freedoms could last as long as rationing after the Second World War. He said it was 'politically unrealistic' to expect the Government to backtrack on social controls anytime soon because the public had become so used to them. Lord Sumption suggested Britons had actually started to take comfort in restrictions because they made them feel safe."
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
I know what you mean but the analogy is inexact. The British monarchy is 1500 years old, it goes right back to Athelstan, Alfred, Offa the Great, and the god Woden. It is woven through British - English, welsh. Scottish and Irish - history, since the mists of the Dark Ages. It has endured invasion and conquest, civil wars, regicide, world war, and several plagues. And it is still there. Closely wound with every national institution, the embodiment of the nation - in a glorious medley of fine music, ancient tradition, religious belief, scurrilous gossip, grand architecture, sexual misbehavior and really beautiful gardens.
Destroying it to replace it with a republic would be like tearing down a magnificent Gothic cathedral to make way for much needed office space. There may be a practical argument, but it just isn’t going to happen. The cathedral reassures in its endurance, even if bits of it keep falling off.
The EU commission is not so ancient or beloved. Tho I agree it may survive out of sheer apathy.
I think you've fallen for the mythology, common to all nationalist ideologies, that the institutions and customs of their "nation" are ancient, eternal even. The British monarchy is only a couple of years older than the EU commission.
The British monarchy is only seventy years old?
I was being generous. If you want to say that the current institution is the same as that of Athelstan, then you have to accept the European Commission is the same as the ancient Roman consuls, so the EU commission is quite a bit older than the British monarchy - on Leon's terms at least!
The British monarchy goes back to the God Odin, almost certainly, and is thus quasi-divine. No one ever said that of Charles Juncker. The present Queen is the 32nd great granddaughter of Alfred of Wessex
How does the bloodline jump from the Saxons to the Normans?
The Normans were already intertwined with Saxon aristocracy. William the Conqueror almost certainly bedded my great great ggggggggg grandmother Maud Ingelric, ‘a Saxon noblewoman’ thus spawning one bastard strand of the Peverell line
The Royal lines were reunited when an Anglo Saxon Queen of Scotland married Henry I of England
It’s not as if the pinch point for 12% of global trade just got blocked, or anything like that.
Yeah, but I'd be surprised if much wood pulp is travelling through the Suez. Always ready to be proved wrong.
Not sure whether the ships used to transport wood pulp are the same as used for the trade through Suez, but if everything takes an extra ten days in each direction while the canal is closed then less stuff overall will be transported. Maybe that would be less wood pulp on a different route with the ships diverted to serve the Suez trade.
Not that I'm concerned. We still have months of our Brexit stockpile.
There isn't a special class of goods or ships that make up "the Suez trade." Why would there be, and if there were, why should woodchip be excluded from it?
Well clearly ships that carry wood cannot easily start carrying oil.
I know that oil, gas and container ships use Suez.
I do not know whether there are ships that take wood through, or are similar. That's why I raised the point of the ships.
Indeed, many protestants see any images of Christ as idolatrous. Many believe that the cross should not be seen with an image of Christ on it as he "came down from the cross". All the more reason why the CofE's recent pronouncement that they will "remove images that cause offence" maybe a little tricky
Two news items completely unrelated on the TV just now. Both worthy of comment
BBC News channel some idiot woman from 'The Independent SAGE' arguing that we should not end lockdown and should tighten controls because new cases are up very slightly over the last 2 weeks (although the rise has now levelled off). BBC presenter doing nothing to challenge her fear mongering.
On a completely different subject, news item on Sky. Joe Biden showing a good sense of humour in his press conference when asked why he hadn't started his campaign for re-election yet when his predecessor already had at this point. Biden's response - "Well he needed to." followed by a laugh and then "oh I do miss him".
It’s not as if the pinch point for 12% of global trade just got blocked, or anything like that.
Yeah, but I'd be surprised if much wood pulp is travelling through the Suez. Always ready to be proved wrong.
Not sure whether the ships used to transport wood pulp are the same as used for the trade through Suez, but if everything takes an extra ten days in each direction while the canal is closed then less stuff overall will be transported. Maybe that would be less wood pulp on a different route with the ships diverted to serve the Suez trade.
Not that I'm concerned. We still have months of our Brexit stockpile.
There isn't a special class of goods or ships that make up "the Suez trade." Why would there be, and if there were, why should woodchip be excluded from it?
Well clearly ships that carry wood cannot easily start carrying oil.
I know that oil, gas and container ships use Suez.
I do not know whether there are ships that take wood through, or are similar. That's why I raised the point of the ships.
Indeed, many protestants see any images of Christ as idolatrous. Many believe that the cross should not be seen with an image of Christ on it as he "came down from the cross". All the more reason why the CofE's recent pronouncement that they will "remove images that cause offence" maybe a little tricky
Whoops, hit the worng "quote". Sorry to cause confusion lol
You know what a weird world we are living in when I agree with Julia HB.
She seems to have nailed the inherent contradiction in this non-policy about pub 'vaxports' –– if we aren't going to bring in the policy until everyone has been offered a vax, why would we need it anyway?
Regardless of the rights and wrongs, the idea is sheer illogical nonsense.
Asda store workers may have won this battle in their long running equal pay claim - but the war is far from over.
The Supreme Court has ruled that for the purposes of equal pay the work of the mainly male distribution workers can be compared to the mainly female shop floor workers.
But next they need to prove their work is of equal value - in terms of skills and training.
And finally that gender is the key reason that their pay is different.
I find this story utterly bizarre. If the work is the same value, why don’t the women apply for warehouse jobs?
I’ll tell you why, the jobs are not the same and it’s much nicer working in a heated/air conditioned supermarket than in a freezing cold/boiling hot warehouse.
It does seem strange. I assume there must be complexities to this case not in the news report, as different roles get graded differently.
It's the infantile nature of protesting people not adhering to your faith (or your interpretation of your faith) that always gets me.
People of faith include some of the very best people I know, but theyll come across a lot of things contrary to their faith every damn day and most accept that. Perhaps theyll even proselytize to change things, no problem.
If your faith is strong it can survive the existence of non believers, infidels and apostates without your mind blowing, even if they offend you.
At least in terms of the Christian Wars of Religion following the Reformation, and persecution of heretics before, you are missing the point.
It's not the individual's faith that is threatened by a non-believer. It's the very security and survival of the community, because the devoutly religious believed that God will punish them collectively for the sin of the heretic.
If you believe that famine is a punishment from God, then it's easy to blame the heretic for that punishment.
I do not know where Islam is on the continuum of being able to tolerate heresy. It seems considerably closer to the 17th century then Christianity - but toleration is surprisingly recent for Christianity too, and arguably an incomplete process.
(With apologies to David Crowther of the History of England for anything that I've mangled from his podcasts)
I'm certainly not missing the point in the slightest, because I'm not talking about how people might reasonably feel about the security and survival of their religious community in the past when the material stakes were much higher, and historic tolerances, I am talking about now.
The history of it all is fascinating, but now is not then. Someone of a particular faith in this country is not in danger from the majority not sharing their views. They might still feel a general imperative that all should share their faith, hence they can proselytize, but neither they nor their community are threatened in how they practice their faith and have no grounds, none, to impose the restrictions of their own faith of their community on to others.
And that is what it is. They cannot impose a faith or its restrictions. And they try to present that as being under attack.
But most people of the major faiths in this country seem to get by just fine knowing there are people who do not share their faith, and that some of what others believe and so will offend them. They will seek to change the behaviour of others as a result. And that is totally fine by me.
What is not fine, is pretending their community is imperrilled by the actions of others not following their precepts.
In the Batley case, though, wasn't the teacher involved somewhat disrespectful to the Prophet? I don't think the vast majority of people object to children being taught about the various faiths practised in this country.
As far as Muslims are concerned just showing an image of Muhammad is considered blasphemy. It is ludicrous that they should be able to impose that view on others, particularly in an educational environment.
Well, as others have pointed out, images of Mohammed are quite common in some parts of Islam. A better way to introduce ideas about images of Mohammed in a classroom, if you wanted to do that, would be to take eg a Shia image of Mohammed, and perhaps link to arguments about images in Christianity. There are often statues with smashed faces in English churches if you want to bring in a bit of local history.
I meant to comment on this one:
Indeed, many protestants see any images of Christ as idolatrous. Many believe that the cross should not be seen with an image of Christ on it as he "came down from the cross". All the more reason why the CofE's recent pronouncement that they will "remove images that cause offence" maybe a little tricky
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
I know what you mean but the analogy is inexact. The British monarchy is 1500 years old, it goes right back to Athelstan, Alfred, Offa the Great, and the god Woden. It is woven through British - English, welsh. Scottish and Irish - history, since the mists of the Dark Ages. It has endured invasion and conquest, civil wars, regicide, world war, and several plagues. And it is still there. Closely wound with every national institution, the embodiment of the nation - in a glorious medley of fine music, ancient tradition, religious belief, scurrilous gossip, grand architecture, sexual misbehavior and really beautiful gardens.
Destroying it to replace it with a republic would be like tearing down a magnificent Gothic cathedral to make way for much needed office space. There may be a practical argument, but it just isn’t going to happen. The cathedral reassures in its endurance, even if bits of it keep falling off.
The EU commission is not so ancient or beloved. Tho I agree it may survive out of sheer apathy.
I think you've fallen for the mythology, common to all nationalist ideologies, that the institutions and customs of their "nation" are ancient, eternal even. The British monarchy is only a couple of years older than the EU commission.
The British monarchy is only seventy years old?
I was being generous. If you want to say that the current institution is the same as that of Athelstan, then you have to accept the European Commission is the same as the ancient Roman consuls, so the EU commission is quite a bit older than the British monarchy - on Leon's terms at least!
The British monarchy goes back to the God Odin, almost certainly, and is thus quasi-divine. No one ever said that of Charles Juncker. The present Queen is the 32nd great granddaughter of Alfred of Wessex
How does the bloodline jump from the Saxons to the Normans?
Creatively.
No, quite easily, provably and legitimately. This is not historically disputed. Back then royals shagged each other with abandon, even if they were at war. It was a means of settling arguments and sealing the peace. For a bit
"Face masks and social distancing could be in place for another decade, Lord Sumption has claimed.
The former Supreme Court judge warned restrictions on Britons' freedoms could last as long as rationing after the Second World War. He said it was 'politically unrealistic' to expect the Government to backtrack on social controls anytime soon because the public had become so used to them. Lord Sumption suggested Britons had actually started to take comfort in restrictions because they made them feel safe."
If it was PSHE, history, or an assembly on free speech or something - that would have been a more appropriate context.
RE/RS is for learning about religions.
I think the school/teacher got it wrong and they’re right to apologise.
Bullshit.
Putting up images of a religious nature is entirely appropriate for RE.
They shouldn't be apologising, be better to make it part of the curriculum for all schools.
A relative of mine has a image of the... gentlemen in question on his mantlepiece.
He bought it in a gift shop attached to a major mosque in Tehran.
It is rather interesting - almost Byzantine in the style. A small icon painted tin wood, with a gold leaf halo etc.
Would showing that to an RE class be appropriate?
Wait a minute, I understood the Batley image was one of the Hebdo Mohammed cartoons. Have you seen them? They are entirely without any artistic, intellectual, humorous or any other kind of merit. They are just crude rubbish whose only purpose is to insult people. Putting it on the school curriculum would be a great recruiting tool for islamist extremists.
The article mentions that 787 homicides took place in Chicago in 2020, a city with a population of about 2.7 million people. 787 is probably more than took place in any single European country, including Germany, UK, Italy, etc.
Two news items completely unrelated on the TV just now. Both worthy of comment
BBC News channel some idiot woman from 'The Independent SAGE' arguing that we should not end lockdown and should tighten controls because new cases are up very slightly over the last 2 weeks (although the rise has now levelled off). BBC presenter doing nothing to challenge her fear mongering.
On a completely different subject, news item on Sky. Joe Biden showing a good sense of humour in his press conference when asked why he hadn't started his campaign for re-election yet when his predecessor already had at this point. Biden's response - "Well he needed to." followed by a laugh and then "oh I do miss him".
Good response showing a human side.
Two good nuggets, Richard. On the first, as I have been saying for weeks you can set your watch by the lockdown fanatics. Some of them reside on PB!
On the second, Biden is perennially underrated – expect by the US electorate itself, which is giving him record approval ratings. So I should say, a lot of people who don't matter a jot underrate him.
Blimey have tuned in to PB this morning to see that everyone has turned into @contrarian.
About time. What many failed to see and are now realising is that red lines can be ignored, and others' scoffed at. Until. Your own red lines are the ones being breached.
If I may be allowed to quote myself:
"People scream on here: "but lockdowns work. Go Government". As if that is the most important aspect to all this legislation.
And before they know it they are faced with some measure or other which breeches their own red lines and then they say "well they can't do that". But they already have. And then they look around frantically for Steve Baker of all people to come and rescue them/us all."
Contrarian has been railing against restrictions at a time when cases and deaths were going through the roof and there was a real danger of hospitals being overwhelmed within weeks. That's a minority view, on here and in the country.
The extension of emergency powers to the autumn, when any sensible analysis suggests they should not, in all probability, be needed makes many of us queasy. I supported the January lockdown. I'm fine with the pretty cautious opening up plan. I want to see some very good reasons why legislation needs extending now. As we've seen before, steps can be taken quickly if needed, we don't need to be agreeing these powers now.
You are proving my point. You think it was justified then but not now. Because your view of freedoms and legislation incorporate and justify taking such action then as though it is the only logical thing to have done. "Everyone agrees..."
But someone else's red line was back then and they thought the actions the government took were beyond what was justified given the circumstances. Were they right or wrong? Are you right or wrong? Is the key metric 10 lives or 10,000 lives? Irrelevant. It is the principle that is important. The government used and is using draconian powers to legislate (away) our freedoms.
Watch again that Tory MP and his pint of milk. Seems bonkers. Actually it is particularly acute and relevant.
I'll leave Contrarian to one side, if I may, as his/her arguments also include a bit of denialism in my view. Sometimes, I do find that Contrarian is plain wrong. Stocky was writing yesterday, arguing that what we've done this time was wrong because we can't do it every time. Stocky finds (I hope I'm interpreting right, apologies if not) that the enforced restriction of liberty is just too much, even though the threat is very real. That's not wrong, it's personal values. I'm on the other side of that debate to Stocky, but I can respect the argument and Stocky is in no way wrong.
As you say, we all have our tipping point. For some, we all need to stay locked down/restricted until we can be sure opening up will not cause any more deaths. For me, that's absurd. We don't lock down for flu every year. We don't set the speed limit to 20mph everywhere. We accept risks for benefits. We accept deaths for freedoms. I think we could probably go a bit quicker than planned, but I accept there are uncertainties and the government has been burned on this before, so I can accept the caution.
I'm not on SAGE, nor an expert in infectious disease, but I have worked with PHE/Dept of Health on projections for noncommunicable diseases. Don't get too concerned about the pessimistic reports. PHE/the government always want the worst case scenarios in addition to various 'realistic' scenarios. They like the certainty of a worst case scenario - as a scientist you're basically telling them there are lots of ifs, buts and maybes in all the other scenarios and it depends on actions and a lot of random, unpredictable factors. But with the worst case scenario you're essentially saying to them, I'm certain, it won't get worse than this. They tend to fixate on that certainty and ignore much of the rest (which can be frustrating!). When the worst case scenarios are no longer that troubling, that's when the politicians in charge of this will relax.
The public pessimism at the moment, I think, is designed to get people to stick with the restrictions as they're lifted under the current plan. We're not yet far enough with vaccinations to stop another wave of cases, at least. The unvaccinated are those more likely to spread and more likely to be infected. I expect the numbers will show that we could still get hospitals into trouble if the unvaccinated population goes crazy. We do need people to keep following restrictions now (although, as suggested yesterday by Andy Cooke, I think, it would be nice to loosen up earlier on outside stuff which is low risk). Come the summer, unless the unexpected happens, the worst case scenarios will no longer be scary and there's no reason we can't all crack on.
It's more than personal values. Our liberal democratic structures, which defines our rights and liberties etc, over-arch everything. These rights and liberties are not personal values, they are not fetishes, they are categorical imperatives. I'm astonished that what has happened can be legal. No government should have the power to override liberal democracy for a natural occurrence such as a virus.
So, @Stocky, I still don't quite get what you mean by the charge that the government overrode liberal democracy to fight the virus.
Maybe if we look at a practical example. When this thing kicked off on March 23 with Johnson's seminal "Stay at Home" broadcast - initiating what came to be known as Lockdown - are you saying that iyo this ought to have been a request not an instruction?
That codifying the restrictions in law was a violation of our liberal democracy?
I`m not a lawyer and to be honest I`m not sure. Miss Cyclefree and others are better equipped to answer this than I am. I want to answer your question with a simple "Yes" because removing rights and freedoms by law is obviously a violation of liberal democracy. But, though uncomfortable, I supported the initial lockdown which was for a maximum of twelve weeks and was expressly to stave off disaster in the health services. I was horrified that it was extended and wrote an header about it at the beginning of April. I felt that the seriousness of Covid in the round was being underplayed (and I think it still is). Johnson, of course, used wartime analogies but I don't feel this is appropriate with a natural event.
I don`t think that a particular government of any stripe should have the ability to over-ride the overarching system of governance that it works beneath and which elected it. As I said yesterday, how can it be that "details" such as leaving the EU / Scotland splitting MUST be tested by at least one referendum and strong parliamentary support (I know) but abandoning the whole system even for a short period does not. (Don't misunderstand me - I`m not arguing in favour of referenda.)
Sorry I can`t give a better answer but at least it`s an honest one. You won't feel as uncomfortable about all this as I do because I don`t think that you, along with others who are strongly left wing, see individual liberty as a categorical imperative. (Indeed, you described it a while back as a "fetish".) But you have to accept that we operate beneath a system that DOES regard liberty as such. I partly see this as an attempt to weaken liberal democracy to be honest. And it`s working.
Ok, thanks for v good answer. More of a feel thing, then, and I don't say that as a criticism.
I surely don't see personal liberty as a fetish (!) - that would have been me responding to what I considered to be people being a bit 1st world and precious on the subject - but I guess you're right that I don't elevate it above all else as some others do.
But I'm not totally on the opposite side of the debate. As examples, I think there was too much micro-managing legislation on mixing. That the care home regime was inhumane. The roadmap is probably on the cautious side. Vaxports are a bad idea. The emergency powers should not have been extended for 6 months. Making travel out of the country illegal is OTT.
Going back to the basics of what actually happened, the thing I think people have to remember is that stopping the NHS collapsing was the driver and the NHS did (just about) collapse in both the 1st and the 2nd wave. So, for me, on the big picture rather than the detail, this is a strong piece of circumstantial evidence against the charge that we overreacted to Covid 19.
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
I know what you mean but the analogy is inexact. The British monarchy is 1500 years old, it goes right back to Athelstan, Alfred, Offa the Great, and the god Woden. It is woven through British - English, welsh. Scottish and Irish - history, since the mists of the Dark Ages. It has endured invasion and conquest, civil wars, regicide, world war, and several plagues. And it is still there. Closely wound with every national institution, the embodiment of the nation - in a glorious medley of fine music, ancient tradition, religious belief, scurrilous gossip, grand architecture, sexual misbehavior and really beautiful gardens.
Destroying it to replace it with a republic would be like tearing down a magnificent Gothic cathedral to make way for much needed office space. There may be a practical argument, but it just isn’t going to happen. The cathedral reassures in its endurance, even if bits of it keep falling off.
The EU commission is not so ancient or beloved. Tho I agree it may survive out of sheer apathy.
I think you've fallen for the mythology, common to all nationalist ideologies, that the institutions and customs of their "nation" are ancient, eternal even. The British monarchy is only a couple of years older than the EU commission.
The British monarchy is only seventy years old?
That was the last time the monarchy travelled directly down the family tree.
No it isn't. The last time it didn't pass to a direct offspring (son or daughter) was 1837 when it passed from Uncle to Niece. Even then she was the Grandaughter of a former king.
You know what a weird world we are living in when I agree with Julia HB.
She seems to have nailed the inherent contradiction in this non-policy about pub 'vaxports' –– if we aren't going to bring in the policy until everyone has been offered a vax, why would we need it anyway?
Regardless of the rights and wrongs, the idea is sheer illogical nonsense.
No doubt the reason will be "just in case".
The same precautionary nonsense that has got the EU countries into such a mess over vaccine refusal.
It's the infantile nature of protesting people not adhering to your faith (or your interpretation of your faith) that always gets me.
People of faith include some of the very best people I know, but theyll come across a lot of things contrary to their faith every damn day and most accept that. Perhaps theyll even proselytize to change things, no problem.
If your faith is strong it can survive the existence of non believers, infidels and apostates without your mind blowing, even if they offend you.
At least in terms of the Christian Wars of Religion following the Reformation, and persecution of heretics before, you are missing the point.
It's not the individual's faith that is threatened by a non-believer. It's the very security and survival of the community, because the devoutly religious believed that God will punish them collectively for the sin of the heretic.
If you believe that famine is a punishment from God, then it's easy to blame the heretic for that punishment.
I do not know where Islam is on the continuum of being able to tolerate heresy. It seems considerably closer to the 17th century then Christianity - but toleration is surprisingly recent for Christianity too, and arguably an incomplete process.
(With apologies to David Crowther of the History of England for anything that I've mangled from his podcasts)
I'm certainly not missing the point in the slightest, because I'm not talking about how people might reasonably feel about the security and survival of their religious community in the past when the material stakes were much higher, and historic tolerances, I am talking about now.
The history of it all is fascinating, but now is not then. Someone of a particular faith in this country is not in danger from the majority not sharing their views. They might still feel a general imperative that all should share their faith, hence they can proselytize, but neither they nor their community are threatened in how they practice their faith and have no grounds, none, to impose the restrictions of their own faith of their community on to others.
And that is what it is. They cannot impose a faith or its restrictions. And they try to present that as being under attack.
But most people of the major faiths in this country seem to get by just fine knowing there are people who do not share their faith, and that some of what others believe and so will offend them. They will seek to change the behaviour of others as a result. And that is totally fine by me.
What is not fine, is pretending their community is imperrilled by the actions of others not following their precepts.
In the Batley case, though, wasn't the teacher involved somewhat disrespectful to the Prophet? I don't think the vast majority of people object to children being taught about the various faiths practised in this country.
As far as Muslims are concerned just showing an image of Muhammad is considered blasphemy. It is ludicrous that they should be able to impose that view on others, particularly in an educational environment.
Well, as others have pointed out, images of Mohammed are quite common in some parts of Islam. A better way to introduce ideas about images of Mohammed in a classroom, if you wanted to do that, would be to take eg a Shia image of Mohammed, and perhaps link to arguments about images in Christianity. There are often statues with smashed faces in English churches if you want to bring in a bit of local history.
You can of course argue about how it is done. What you (not you personally but those protesting at the moment) cannot do is claim that showing his image should be a sackable offence. Indeed they should have no influence on how children are taught RE at all as long as it is in line with UK law and is factually accurate.
On your point about smashed statues in English churches that is an excellent comparison. Islam is about 400 years out of date.
Yes, showing his image should not be a sackable offence. The protesters are of course wrong. But there's a big difference between saying "never show an image of Mohammed" and "in 99.9 percent of cases showing an infantile and offensive image of Mohammed in a classroom is unlikely to be productive of good learning outcomes, so please don't do it"
There must be lots of people (not least Muslims!) who believe in teachers being allowed to teach difficult or controversial subjects, but don't want to be put in the position of seeming to defend stupid cartoons.
Maybe they want to take a shortcut to herd immunity
As far as I can tell what Merkel cancelled wouldn't have made any difference anyway. She cancelled the dumb idea of forcing supermarkets to close the Thursday before Easter as well as the usual Good Friday, Sunday and Easter Monday, which would only have made the usual "Easter Saturday" supermarket crush even worse than other years. A few other shops would have been affected on the Thursday and Saturday, but non-essential shops are anyway subject to restrictions so I don't think that could have made much difference either way. Non-essential workplaces would also have been asked to close for 5 days, but again as most of these would be anyway more or less closed at the weekend and on the Friday and Monday which are public holidays, I can't see how it would have helped much. I mean even 5 real days wouldn't make much difference, so 5 days 4 of which are anyway holidays is a complete waste of time.
Plus they went back on the proposed ban on in-person religious services over Easter. Probably the only bit of the proposals that made any sense (easy for me to say, having never been to an Easter service in my life), but it shows how powerful the churches are in Germany that this ban was also scrapped.
Merkel's (and Germany's) problem is that having done almost nothing for a whole year, she finds she no longer has any authority to try and persuade people to do even small things now.
The situation is deteriorating so rapidly that I guess the Bundesländer will just start imposing more emergency measures within a few days without necessarily getting agreement with others.
It's very sad because anyone with half a brain can see what will happen. Here in Spain the uptick is just starting but instead of acting quickly to stem it we are relaxing the rules for Easter which will probably allow the 4th wave to take hold. I'm not sure that our rulers anywhere ever seem to learn. This is why I'm more sympathetic to the current ultra caution in the UK. It would be awful to waste the vaccine premium when the coutry is over half way there.
If it was PSHE, history, or an assembly on free speech or something - that would have been a more appropriate context.
RE/RS is for learning about religions.
I think the school/teacher got it wrong and they’re right to apologise.
Bullshit.
Putting up images of a religious nature is entirely appropriate for RE.
They shouldn't be apologising, be better to make it part of the curriculum for all schools.
A relative of mine has a image of the... gentlemen in question on his mantlepiece.
He bought it in a gift shop attached to a major mosque in Tehran.
It is rather interesting - almost Byzantine in the style. A small icon painted tin wood, with a gold leaf halo etc.
Would showing that to an RE class be appropriate?
Wait a minute, I understood the Batley image was one of the Hebdo Mohammed cartoons. Have you seen them? They are entirely without any artistic, intellectual, humorous or any other kind of merit. They are just crude rubbish whose only purpose is to insult people. Putting it on the school curriculum would be a great recruiting tool for islamist extremists.
Your image sounds completely different.
If that is the case then you have a point.
So artistic merit is the issue?
No, both images are offensive to some.
That doesn't justify anything.
If you want to support other peoples fundamentalism, then be honest with yourself.
For some reasonit makes me think of an old game I've mentioned before, Republic: The Revolution, where during the course of things the political faction you run splits, and one of your major figures seeks to take you down. You can overcome it and then even recruit them back into the fold, with reports of some thinking the spat then reconciliation was just to make you seem stronger.
I have no idea of Salmond seeking SNP alternatives would make a difference, but if he instead were to say despite it all, vote SNP?
Blimey have tuned in to PB this morning to see that everyone has turned into @contrarian.
About time. What many failed to see and are now realising is that red lines can be ignored, and others' scoffed at. Until. Your own red lines are the ones being breached.
If I may be allowed to quote myself:
"People scream on here: "but lockdowns work. Go Government". As if that is the most important aspect to all this legislation.
And before they know it they are faced with some measure or other which breeches their own red lines and then they say "well they can't do that". But they already have. And then they look around frantically for Steve Baker of all people to come and rescue them/us all."
Contrarian has been railing against restrictions at a time when cases and deaths were going through the roof and there was a real danger of hospitals being overwhelmed within weeks. That's a minority view, on here and in the country.
The extension of emergency powers to the autumn, when any sensible analysis suggests they should not, in all probability, be needed makes many of us queasy. I supported the January lockdown. I'm fine with the pretty cautious opening up plan. I want to see some very good reasons why legislation needs extending now. As we've seen before, steps can be taken quickly if needed, we don't need to be agreeing these powers now.
You are proving my point. You think it was justified then but not now. Because your view of freedoms and legislation incorporate and justify taking such action then as though it is the only logical thing to have done. "Everyone agrees..."
But someone else's red line was back then and they thought the actions the government took were beyond what was justified given the circumstances. Were they right or wrong? Are you right or wrong? Is the key metric 10 lives or 10,000 lives? Irrelevant. It is the principle that is important. The government used and is using draconian powers to legislate (away) our freedoms.
Watch again that Tory MP and his pint of milk. Seems bonkers. Actually it is particularly acute and relevant.
I'll leave Contrarian to one side, if I may, as his/her arguments also include a bit of denialism in my view. Sometimes, I do find that Contrarian is plain wrong. Stocky was writing yesterday, arguing that what we've done this time was wrong because we can't do it every time. Stocky finds (I hope I'm interpreting right, apologies if not) that the enforced restriction of liberty is just too much, even though the threat is very real. That's not wrong, it's personal values. I'm on the other side of that debate to Stocky, but I can respect the argument and Stocky is in no way wrong.
As you say, we all have our tipping point. For some, we all need to stay locked down/restricted until we can be sure opening up will not cause any more deaths. For me, that's absurd. We don't lock down for flu every year. We don't set the speed limit to 20mph everywhere. We accept risks for benefits. We accept deaths for freedoms. I think we could probably go a bit quicker than planned, but I accept there are uncertainties and the government has been burned on this before, so I can accept the caution.
I'm not on SAGE, nor an expert in infectious disease, but I have worked with PHE/Dept of Health on projections for noncommunicable diseases. Don't get too concerned about the pessimistic reports. PHE/the government always want the worst case scenarios in addition to various 'realistic' scenarios. They like the certainty of a worst case scenario - as a scientist you're basically telling them there are lots of ifs, buts and maybes in all the other scenarios and it depends on actions and a lot of random, unpredictable factors. But with the worst case scenario you're essentially saying to them, I'm certain, it won't get worse than this. They tend to fixate on that certainty and ignore much of the rest (which can be frustrating!). When the worst case scenarios are no longer that troubling, that's when the politicians in charge of this will relax.
The public pessimism at the moment, I think, is designed to get people to stick with the restrictions as they're lifted under the current plan. We're not yet far enough with vaccinations to stop another wave of cases, at least. The unvaccinated are those more likely to spread and more likely to be infected. I expect the numbers will show that we could still get hospitals into trouble if the unvaccinated population goes crazy. We do need people to keep following restrictions now (although, as suggested yesterday by Andy Cooke, I think, it would be nice to loosen up earlier on outside stuff which is low risk). Come the summer, unless the unexpected happens, the worst case scenarios will no longer be scary and there's no reason we can't all crack on.
It's more than personal values. Our liberal democratic structures, which defines our rights and liberties etc, over-arch everything. These rights and liberties are not personal values, they are not fetishes, they are categorical imperatives. I'm astonished that what has happened can be legal. No government should have the power to override liberal democracy for a natural occurrence such as a virus.
So, @Stocky, I still don't quite get what you mean by the charge that the government overrode liberal democracy to fight the virus.
Maybe if we look at a practical example. When this thing kicked off on March 23 with Johnson's seminal "Stay at Home" broadcast - initiating what came to be known as Lockdown - are you saying that iyo this ought to have been a request not an instruction?
That codifying the restrictions in law was a violation of our liberal democracy?
I`m not a lawyer and to be honest I`m not sure. Miss Cyclefree and others are better equipped to answer this than I am. I want to answer your question with a simple "Yes" because removing rights and freedoms by law is obviously a violation of liberal democracy. But, though uncomfortable, I supported the initial lockdown which was for a maximum of twelve weeks and was expressly to stave off disaster in the health services. I was horrified that it was extended and wrote an header about it at the beginning of April. I felt that the seriousness of Covid in the round was being underplayed (and I think it still is). Johnson, of course, used wartime analogies but I don't feel this is appropriate with a natural event.
I don`t think that a particular government of any stripe should have the ability to over-ride the overarching system of governance that it works beneath and which elected it. As I said yesterday, how can it be that "details" such as leaving the EU / Scotland splitting MUST be tested by at least one referendum and strong parliamentary support (I know) but abandoning the whole system even for a short period does not. (Don't misunderstand me - I`m not arguing in favour of referenda.)
Sorry I can`t give a better answer but at least it`s an honest one. You won't feel as uncomfortable about all this as I do because I don`t think that you, along with others who are strongly left wing, see individual liberty as a categorical imperative. (Indeed, you described it a while back as a "fetish".) But you have to accept that we operate beneath a system that DOES regard liberty as such. I partly see this as an attempt to weaken liberal democracy to be honest. And it`s working.
Ok, thanks for v good answer. More of a feel thing, then, and I don't say that as a criticism.
I surely don't see personal liberty as a fetish (!) - that would have been me responding to what I considered to be people being a bit 1st world and precious on the subject - but I guess you're right that I don't elevate it above all else as some others do.
But I'm not totally on the opposite side of the debate. As examples, I think there was too much micro-managing legislation on mixing. That the care home regime was inhumane. The roadmap is probably on the cautious side. Vaxports are a bad idea. The emergency powers should not have been extended for 6 months. Making travel out of the country illegal is OTT.
Going back to the basics of what actually happened, the thing I think people have to remember is that stopping the NHS collapsing was the driver and the NHS did (just about) collapse in both the 1st and the 2nd wave. So, for me, on the big picture rather than the detail, this is a strong piece of circumstantial evidence against the charge that we overreacted to Covid 19.
Glad to hear you are opposed to emergency powers being extended for 6 months. If they had extended them until 21 June that would have made more sense.
I am utterly baffled by the surprise shown on here to the Asda decision which is based on a law that has been in place since 1971 - the Equal Pay Act (now consolidated into the Equality Act). There is nothing that remarkable in there.
I am utterly baffled by the surprise shown on here to the Asda decision which is based on a law that has been in place since 1971 - the Equal Pay Act (now consolidated into the Equality Act). There is nothing that remarkable in there.
My confusion as they appear to be different roles - are there rules on how equivalent roles are, so you cannot discriminate by the back door by pretending roles don't deserve the same pay grade?
It’s not as if the pinch point for 12% of global trade just got blocked, or anything like that.
Yeah, but I'd be surprised if much wood pulp is travelling through the Suez. Always ready to be proved wrong.
Not sure whether the ships used to transport wood pulp are the same as used for the trade through Suez, but if everything takes an extra ten days in each direction while the canal is closed then less stuff overall will be transported. Maybe that would be less wood pulp on a different route with the ships diverted to serve the Suez trade.
Not that I'm concerned. We still have months of our Brexit stockpile.
There isn't a special class of goods or ships that make up "the Suez trade." Why would there be, and if there were, why should woodchip be excluded from it?
Well clearly ships that carry wood cannot easily start carrying oil.
I know that oil, gas and container ships use Suez.
I do not know whether there are ships that take wood through, or are similar. That's why I raised the point of the ships.
Indeed, many protestants see any images of Christ as idolatrous. Many believe that the cross should not be seen with an image of Christ on it as he "came down from the cross". All the more reason why the CofE's recent pronouncement that they will "remove images that cause offence" maybe a little tricky
To celebrate this cross post I have built a cross out of rolls of toilet paper.
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The thing I don’t understand with the EU is that there seems to be a mutually positive joint statement with the UK to deescalate, and the next day UVdL is back at it again with Macron.
For some reasonit makes me think of an old game I've mentioned before, Republic: The Revolution, where during the course of things the political faction you run splits, and one of your major figures seeks to take you down. You can overcome it and then even recruit them back into the fold, with reports of some thinking the spat then reconciliation was just to make you seem stronger.
I have no idea of Salmond seeking SNP alternatives would make a difference, but if he instead were to say despite it all, vote SNP?
Hehe. Looks like the scrap for the dark soul of the Scottish Nasty Party is about to get even nastier!
Two news items completely unrelated on the TV just now. Both worthy of comment
BBC News channel some idiot woman from 'The Independent SAGE' arguing that we should not end lockdown and should tighten controls because new cases are up very slightly over the last 2 weeks (although the rise has now levelled off). BBC presenter doing nothing to challenge her fear mongering.
On a completely different subject, news item on Sky. Joe Biden showing a good sense of humour in his press conference when asked why he hadn't started his campaign for re-election yet when his predecessor already had at this point. Biden's response - "Well he needed to." followed by a laugh and then "oh I do miss him".
Good response showing a human side.
Two good nuggets, Richard. On the first, as I have been saying for weeks you can set your watch by the lockdown fanatics. Some of them reside on PB!
On the second, Biden is perennially underrated – expect by the US electorate itself, which is giving him record approval ratings. So I should say, a lot of people who don't matter a jot underrate him.
It’s not as if the pinch point for 12% of global trade just got blocked, or anything like that.
Yeah, but I'd be surprised if much wood pulp is travelling through the Suez. Always ready to be proved wrong.
Not sure whether the ships used to transport wood pulp are the same as used for the trade through Suez, but if everything takes an extra ten days in each direction while the canal is closed then less stuff overall will be transported. Maybe that would be less wood pulp on a different route with the ships diverted to serve the Suez trade.
Not that I'm concerned. We still have months of our Brexit stockpile.
There isn't a special class of goods or ships that make up "the Suez trade." Why would there be, and if there were, why should woodchip be excluded from it?
Well clearly ships that carry wood cannot easily start carrying oil.
I know that oil, gas and container ships use Suez.
I do not know whether there are ships that take wood through, or are similar. That's why I raised the point of the ships.
Indeed, many protestants see any images of Christ as idolatrous. Many believe that the cross should not be seen with an image of Christ on it as he "came down from the cross". All the more reason why the CofE's recent pronouncement that they will "remove images that cause offence" maybe a little tricky
To celebrate this cross post I have built a cross out of rolls of toilet paper.
How many religions have I offended by doing this?
Probably your partner who is in the roll-less loo on the thunderbox swearing at you.
To previous: Who are these "many Protestants"? I'll give you "a few, peripheral".
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
I know what you mean but the analogy is inexact. The British monarchy is 1500 years old, it goes right back to Athelstan, Alfred, Offa the Great, and the god Woden. It is woven through British - English, welsh. Scottish and Irish - history, since the mists of the Dark Ages. It has endured invasion and conquest, civil wars, regicide, world war, and several plagues. And it is still there. Closely wound with every national institution, the embodiment of the nation - in a glorious medley of fine music, ancient tradition, religious belief, scurrilous gossip, grand architecture, sexual misbehavior and really beautiful gardens.
Destroying it to replace it with a republic would be like tearing down a magnificent Gothic cathedral to make way for much needed office space. There may be a practical argument, but it just isn’t going to happen. The cathedral reassures in its endurance, even if bits of it keep falling off.
The EU commission is not so ancient or beloved. Tho I agree it may survive out of sheer apathy.
I think you've fallen for the mythology, common to all nationalist ideologies, that the institutions and customs of their "nation" are ancient, eternal even. The British monarchy is only a couple of years older than the EU commission.
The British monarchy is only seventy years old?
That was the last time the monarchy travelled directly down the family tree.
No it isn't. The last time it didn't pass to a direct offspring (son or daughter) was 1837 when it passed from Uncle to Niece. Even then she was the Grandaughter of a former king.
It's a mathematical certainty that von der Leyen is a direct descendant of Roman consuls, so the EU commission is still older.
I am utterly baffled by the surprise shown on here to the Asda decision which is based on a law that has been in place since 1971 - the Equal Pay Act (now consolidated into the Equality Act). There is nothing that remarkable in there.
Can you explain it to us ? Warehouse and shopfront work seem different beasts to me.
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The thing I don’t understand with the EU is that there seems to be a mutually positive joint statement with the UK to deescalate, and the next day UVdL is back at it again with Macron.
That's pretty easy to understand, the same way they launched salvo after salvo while others, like the Irish Commissioner, then said both sides needed to calm down, suggesting both were at fault somehow.
It's about appearing reasonable, whilst leaving open the option of acting unreasonably. If anyone questions Macron's comments, you just point to the 'official' statement.
The article mentions that 787 homicides took place in Chicago in 2020, a city with a population of about 2.7 million people. 787 is probably more than took place in any single European country, including Germany, UK, Italy, etc.
Wusses. When I first arrived in New York to live there in January 1992, we had well over 2000 murders reported for 1991. Of course, the city was already beginning to go soft - 1991 was a big reduction on 1990:
Blimey have tuned in to PB this morning to see that everyone has turned into @contrarian.
About time. What many failed to see and are now realising is that red lines can be ignored, and others' scoffed at. Until. Your own red lines are the ones being breached.
If I may be allowed to quote myself:
"People scream on here: "but lockdowns work. Go Government". As if that is the most important aspect to all this legislation.
And before they know it they are faced with some measure or other which breeches their own red lines and then they say "well they can't do that". But they already have. And then they look around frantically for Steve Baker of all people to come and rescue them/us all."
Contrarian has been railing against restrictions at a time when cases and deaths were going through the roof and there was a real danger of hospitals being overwhelmed within weeks. That's a minority view, on here and in the country.
The extension of emergency powers to the autumn, when any sensible analysis suggests they should not, in all probability, be needed makes many of us queasy. I supported the January lockdown. I'm fine with the pretty cautious opening up plan. I want to see some very good reasons why legislation needs extending now. As we've seen before, steps can be taken quickly if needed, we don't need to be agreeing these powers now.
You are proving my point. You think it was justified then but not now. Because your view of freedoms and legislation incorporate and justify taking such action then as though it is the only logical thing to have done. "Everyone agrees..."
But someone else's red line was back then and they thought the actions the government took were beyond what was justified given the circumstances. Were they right or wrong? Are you right or wrong? Is the key metric 10 lives or 10,000 lives? Irrelevant. It is the principle that is important. The government used and is using draconian powers to legislate (away) our freedoms.
Watch again that Tory MP and his pint of milk. Seems bonkers. Actually it is particularly acute and relevant.
I'll leave Contrarian to one side, if I may, as his/her arguments also include a bit of denialism in my view. Sometimes, I do find that Contrarian is plain wrong. Stocky was writing yesterday, arguing that what we've done this time was wrong because we can't do it every time. Stocky finds (I hope I'm interpreting right, apologies if not) that the enforced restriction of liberty is just too much, even though the threat is very real. That's not wrong, it's personal values. I'm on the other side of that debate to Stocky, but I can respect the argument and Stocky is in no way wrong.
As you say, we all have our tipping point. For some, we all need to stay locked down/restricted until we can be sure opening up will not cause any more deaths. For me, that's absurd. We don't lock down for flu every year. We don't set the speed limit to 20mph everywhere. We accept risks for benefits. We accept deaths for freedoms. I think we could probably go a bit quicker than planned, but I accept there are uncertainties and the government has been burned on this before, so I can accept the caution.
I'm not on SAGE, nor an expert in infectious disease, but I have worked with PHE/Dept of Health on projections for noncommunicable diseases. Don't get too concerned about the pessimistic reports. PHE/the government always want the worst case scenarios in addition to various 'realistic' scenarios. They like the certainty of a worst case scenario - as a scientist you're basically telling them there are lots of ifs, buts and maybes in all the other scenarios and it depends on actions and a lot of random, unpredictable factors. But with the worst case scenario you're essentially saying to them, I'm certain, it won't get worse than this. They tend to fixate on that certainty and ignore much of the rest (which can be frustrating!). When the worst case scenarios are no longer that troubling, that's when the politicians in charge of this will relax.
The public pessimism at the moment, I think, is designed to get people to stick with the restrictions as they're lifted under the current plan. We're not yet far enough with vaccinations to stop another wave of cases, at least. The unvaccinated are those more likely to spread and more likely to be infected. I expect the numbers will show that we could still get hospitals into trouble if the unvaccinated population goes crazy. We do need people to keep following restrictions now (although, as suggested yesterday by Andy Cooke, I think, it would be nice to loosen up earlier on outside stuff which is low risk). Come the summer, unless the unexpected happens, the worst case scenarios will no longer be scary and there's no reason we can't all crack on.
It's more than personal values. Our liberal democratic structures, which defines our rights and liberties etc, over-arch everything. These rights and liberties are not personal values, they are not fetishes, they are categorical imperatives. I'm astonished that what has happened can be legal. No government should have the power to override liberal democracy for a natural occurrence such as a virus.
So, @Stocky, I still don't quite get what you mean by the charge that the government overrode liberal democracy to fight the virus.
Maybe if we look at a practical example. When this thing kicked off on March 23 with Johnson's seminal "Stay at Home" broadcast - initiating what came to be known as Lockdown - are you saying that iyo this ought to have been a request not an instruction?
That codifying the restrictions in law was a violation of our liberal democracy?
I`m not a lawyer and to be honest I`m not sure. Miss Cyclefree and others are better equipped to answer this than I am. I want to answer your question with a simple "Yes" because removing rights and freedoms by law is obviously a violation of liberal democracy. But, though uncomfortable, I supported the initial lockdown which was for a maximum of twelve weeks and was expressly to stave off disaster in the health services. I was horrified that it was extended and wrote an header about it at the beginning of April. I felt that the seriousness of Covid in the round was being underplayed (and I think it still is). Johnson, of course, used wartime analogies but I don't feel this is appropriate with a natural event.
I don`t think that a particular government of any stripe should have the ability to over-ride the overarching system of governance that it works beneath and which elected it. As I said yesterday, how can it be that "details" such as leaving the EU / Scotland splitting MUST be tested by at least one referendum and strong parliamentary support (I know) but abandoning the whole system even for a short period does not. (Don't misunderstand me - I`m not arguing in favour of referenda.)
Sorry I can`t give a better answer but at least it`s an honest one. You won't feel as uncomfortable about all this as I do because I don`t think that you, along with others who are strongly left wing, see individual liberty as a categorical imperative. (Indeed, you described it a while back as a "fetish".) But you have to accept that we operate beneath a system that DOES regard liberty as such. I partly see this as an attempt to weaken liberal democracy to be honest. And it`s working.
Ok, thanks for v good answer. More of a feel thing, then, and I don't say that as a criticism.
I surely don't see personal liberty as a fetish (!) - that would have been me responding to what I considered to be people being a bit 1st world and precious on the subject - but I guess you're right that I don't elevate it above all else as some others do.
But I'm not totally on the opposite side of the debate. As examples, I think there was too much micro-managing legislation on mixing. That the care home regime was inhumane. The roadmap is probably on the cautious side. Vaxports are a bad idea. The emergency powers should not have been extended for 6 months. Making travel out of the country illegal is OTT.
Going back to the basics of what actually happened, the thing I think people have to remember is that stopping the NHS collapsing was the driver and the NHS did (just about) collapse in both the 1st and the 2nd wave. So, for me, on the big picture rather than the detail, this is a strong piece of circumstantial evidence against the charge that we overreacted to Covid 19.
Agree with all of this. There is the world of difference between brining in restrictions when one is at the start of a pandemic with unknown outcomes and no prophylactic medicine and bringing in new or extending existing measures when the nature of the contagion is understood, the medicines are in place and shown to be working and case numbers are consequently collapsing.
In the first instance the Government is showing sensible and necessary caution. In the second it looks horribly like they are trying to use the remaining fear of the virus to drive through unnecessary and authoritarian laws for the future.
Alex*, 12, a dual heritage pupil at a school in Bristol, had been in year 7 for less than two weeks when he was wrongly accused by a teacher of having stolen cookies from the canteen at lunchtime.
At first he was told off by a teacher. But then the teacher asked a police officer based at the school to speak to him too.
When the officer spoke to Alex, they are alleged to have told him he wouldn’t be taken down to the police station on this occasion. Alex says he was also warned that he did not want to get a criminal record in the future and if he did, he would be unable to travel to the US.
“My heart was beating really fast. I felt scared, and I’ve never felt like that before,” Alex said, describing the moment he was spoken to by the officer.
The next day, Alex’s mother was contacted by the school regarding what had happened. When she found out her son had been spoken to by a police officer, she was “absolutely furious”.
“I was incredibly angry that my son has been interviewed by a police officer without a parent being present. To me, it was just completely over-the-top, completely heavy-handed and completely incorrectly handled.
“My son was petrified, and he was very upset as a result. I find it hard to believe that a middle-class white pupil from a more affluent part of the school’s catchment area would have been treated or spoken to in this way.
“This was a terrifying episode for my son, which led to him being too anxious to attend school for a number of months.”
After she approached the school for an explanation, the school launched an investigation into the incident. The mother also sent a complaint to Avon and Somerset police.
In written correspondence from the school’s deputy headteacher to the mother, seen by the Guardian, an investigation into the incident concluded that “there was no evidence that Alex had stolen cookies as he did pay for them immediately upon being asked to do so”, and the teacher “should not have jumped to the conclusion that he had stolen them”.
The letter said Alex was in the queue with another student who had stolen something earlier, and that “the two incidents [were] conflated as one, which was not appropriate”.
It added that the teacher who had spoken to Alex had “presumed” his guilt as a consequence.
Furthermore, the school said the police officer should not have been involved in the incident. Although the letter states that the manner of the meeting between Alex and the officer was “not confrontational”, the conclusion was that “it was inappropriate for this conversation to be had with Alex in the first place as there is no evidence that he had stolen”.
Still never let the police never complain about them being under resourced if they have the resources to investigate things like this.
What a load of guardianista bollocks. Exactly this happened regularly to white kids in rural England decades ago. I know, because it happened to me, and several friends
The idea is, if you think a kid may be going off the rails, give him a tiny scare when he’s young, and he’ll wise up. Better than a big nasty scare when he’s older
It works, it’s good, it’s sensible.
This new Guardian campaign against ‘racist British schools’ is as desperate as it is disgraceful. This paper is drowning. God knows what their ad income is
The Guardian relies on whole brigades of teachers etc to be its uncritical readers. It is remarkable that they are prepared to label them as racist. They are usually expert at othering evils of every sort. It's a bit like the Sun accusing white van man of being lazy scrounging lefties and disrespecting the flag of St George.
Yes, quite. Which is why it strikes me as desperate and needy. They must have run out of UK institutions to target as ‘racist’ - literally, they’ve done everyone else - but their income still plunges and online ads still dwindle? - so the editor thought ‘fuck it, schools’. And here we are
Have they thought of trying to be an excellent online newspaper?
It’s not as if the pinch point for 12% of global trade just got blocked, or anything like that.
Yeah, but I'd be surprised if much wood pulp is travelling through the Suez. Always ready to be proved wrong.
Not sure whether the ships used to transport wood pulp are the same as used for the trade through Suez, but if everything takes an extra ten days in each direction while the canal is closed then less stuff overall will be transported. Maybe that would be less wood pulp on a different route with the ships diverted to serve the Suez trade.
Not that I'm concerned. We still have months of our Brexit stockpile.
There isn't a special class of goods or ships that make up "the Suez trade." Why would there be, and if there were, why should woodchip be excluded from it?
Well clearly ships that carry wood cannot easily start carrying oil.
I know that oil, gas and container ships use Suez.
I do not know whether there are ships that take wood through, or are similar. That's why I raised the point of the ships.
Indeed, many protestants see any images of Christ as idolatrous. Many believe that the cross should not be seen with an image of Christ on it as he "came down from the cross". All the more reason why the CofE's recent pronouncement that they will "remove images that cause offence" maybe a little tricky
To celebrate this cross post I have built a cross out of rolls of toilet paper.
How many religions have I offended by doing this?
Probably your partner who is in the roll-less loo on the thunderbox swearing at you.
To previous: Who are these "many Protestants"?
Yes - even the hard core Wee Free types I've encountered, seem to take the view that blasphemy falls on the blasphemer alone. That God isn't stupid enough to punish the community for the transgressions of one.
They also seem to have adopted the theory that the blasphemer *belongs* to God - punishing them yourself is usurping Gods prerogative.
I am utterly baffled by the surprise shown on here to the Asda decision which is based on a law that has been in place since 1971 - the Equal Pay Act (now consolidated into the Equality Act). There is nothing that remarkable in there.
My confusion as they appear to be different roles - are there rules on how equivalent roles are, so you cannot discriminate by the back door by pretending roles don't deserve the same pay grade?
The Equality Act principle is that men and women should be paid equally for work of equal value. That’s been true since 1971 but claims have been concentrated in the public sector - particularly local authorities. There is an entire industry of job evaluation out there, a lot of it snake oil, but it’s been around half a century. The movie “Made in Dagenham” tells the story of how it got passed - the women at Ford who put the seats together got paid more than the men that put the other bits of the cars together, because it was “unskilled” labour. There’s a scene where one of the women say “well you do it then” and of course the bosses couldn’t.
It’s been something waiting to happen in the private sector for years.
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
I know what you mean but the analogy is inexact. The British monarchy is 1500 years old, it goes right back to Athelstan, Alfred, Offa the Great, and the god Woden. It is woven through British - English, welsh. Scottish and Irish - history, since the mists of the Dark Ages. It has endured invasion and conquest, civil wars, regicide, world war, and several plagues. And it is still there. Closely wound with every national institution, the embodiment of the nation - in a glorious medley of fine music, ancient tradition, religious belief, scurrilous gossip, grand architecture, sexual misbehavior and really beautiful gardens.
Destroying it to replace it with a republic would be like tearing down a magnificent Gothic cathedral to make way for much needed office space. There may be a practical argument, but it just isn’t going to happen. The cathedral reassures in its endurance, even if bits of it keep falling off.
The EU commission is not so ancient or beloved. Tho I agree it may survive out of sheer apathy.
I think you've fallen for the mythology, common to all nationalist ideologies, that the institutions and customs of their "nation" are ancient, eternal even. The British monarchy is only a couple of years older than the EU commission.
The British monarchy is only seventy years old?
That was the last time the monarchy travelled directly down the family tree.
No it isn't. The last time it didn't pass to a direct offspring (son or daughter) was 1837 when it passed from Uncle to Niece. Even then she was the Grandaughter of a former king.
It's a mathematical certainty that von der Leyen is a direct descendant of Roman consuls, so the EU commission is still older.
No the comment I answered was on direct offspring. Distant hypothetical connections do not count.
I am utterly baffled by the surprise shown on here to the Asda decision which is based on a law that has been in place since 1971 - the Equal Pay Act (now consolidated into the Equality Act). There is nothing that remarkable in there.
Can you explain it to us ? Warehouse and shopfront work seem different beasts to me.
This is a long going issue - not just that there should be equal pay for exactly equal work, but that traditional sex-differentiation of work types is also an issue to be addressed.
How about providing a not-for-profit vaccine freely licenced (like the UK)?
She lies every time she opens her mouth. Or perhaps she simply does not understand that the EU does not own private property located within the confines of the EU.
The lack of challenge to the narrative is depressing. The media has just turned into a copy/paste of press releases.
There are plenty of Europeans who don’t buy her bullshit. See social media. They can read British media (like Macron, daily) and see an entirely different but very plausible take. And this British take has spread around the world, thanks to the EU doing inexcusably nutty things, like banning AZ at the same time as it seizes it.
Ursula knows she will be remembered for this. She’s flubbed the biggest job in the history of the EU. They must be panicking in the Commission. I do feel sorry for them as individuals, it was the nature of the institution that bedeviled them. There was no personal malice aforethought.
Tho they are now clearly lying
The contrast in quality between VDL and Junckers comments yesterday was stark.
Yes, when an ex prime minister of Luxembourg, known for his excessive drinking, comes across as a lost political giant, you know an institution is in trouble
I was living in India at the time, and not following the news at all, but when someone told me Princess Diana (or "Lady Dee" as they put it) had died, I started reading the English language Asian Age newspaper every day for a while which had a lot of UK news in it. As a republican, I was happy to see that there seemed to be widespread disgust with the royal family. "Finally, people's eyes are opening. The monarchy will soon be finished", I thought to myself. 24 years later and it's still going. The EU is maybe an institution like the royal family, everybody knows it's crap and populated by mediocrities at best but it's tolerated because they think getting rid of it would be worse.
I know what you mean but the analogy is inexact. The British monarchy is 1500 years old, it goes right back to Athelstan, Alfred, Offa the Great, and the god Woden. It is woven through British - English, welsh. Scottish and Irish - history, since the mists of the Dark Ages. It has endured invasion and conquest, civil wars, regicide, world war, and several plagues. And it is still there. Closely wound with every national institution, the embodiment of the nation - in a glorious medley of fine music, ancient tradition, religious belief, scurrilous gossip, grand architecture, sexual misbehavior and really beautiful gardens.
Destroying it to replace it with a republic would be like tearing down a magnificent Gothic cathedral to make way for much needed office space. There may be a practical argument, but it just isn’t going to happen. The cathedral reassures in its endurance, even if bits of it keep falling off.
The EU commission is not so ancient or beloved. Tho I agree it may survive out of sheer apathy.
I think you've fallen for the mythology, common to all nationalist ideologies, that the institutions and customs of their "nation" are ancient, eternal even. The British monarchy is only a couple of years older than the EU commission.
The British monarchy is only seventy years old?
That was the last time the monarchy travelled directly down the family tree.
No it isn't. The last time it didn't pass to a direct offspring (son or daughter) was 1837 when it passed from Uncle to Niece. Even then she was the Grandaughter of a former king.
It's a mathematical certainty that von der Leyen is a direct descendant of Roman consuls, so the EU commission is still older.
The difference is the British monarchy can prove its descent, with a spectacular series of real-life stories involving rape, murder, betrayal, more murder, war, sodomy and exquisite art collecting, which just makes better box office.
Blimey have tuned in to PB this morning to see that everyone has turned into @contrarian.
About time. What many failed to see and are now realising is that red lines can be ignored, and others' scoffed at. Until. Your own red lines are the ones being breached.
If I may be allowed to quote myself:
"People scream on here: "but lockdowns work. Go Government". As if that is the most important aspect to all this legislation.
And before they know it they are faced with some measure or other which breeches their own red lines and then they say "well they can't do that". But they already have. And then they look around frantically for Steve Baker of all people to come and rescue them/us all."
Contrarian has been railing against restrictions at a time when cases and deaths were going through the roof and there was a real danger of hospitals being overwhelmed within weeks. That's a minority view, on here and in the country.
The extension of emergency powers to the autumn, when any sensible analysis suggests they should not, in all probability, be needed makes many of us queasy. I supported the January lockdown. I'm fine with the pretty cautious opening up plan. I want to see some very good reasons why legislation needs extending now. As we've seen before, steps can be taken quickly if needed, we don't need to be agreeing these powers now.
You are proving my point. You think it was justified then but not now. Because your view of freedoms and legislation incorporate and justify taking such action then as though it is the only logical thing to have done. "Everyone agrees..."
But someone else's red line was back then and they thought the actions the government took were beyond what was justified given the circumstances. Were they right or wrong? Are you right or wrong? Is the key metric 10 lives or 10,000 lives? Irrelevant. It is the principle that is important. The government used and is using draconian powers to legislate (away) our freedoms.
Watch again that Tory MP and his pint of milk. Seems bonkers. Actually it is particularly acute and relevant.
I'll leave Contrarian to one side, if I may, as his/her arguments also include a bit of denialism in my view. Sometimes, I do find that Contrarian is plain wrong. Stocky was writing yesterday, arguing that what we've done this time was wrong because we can't do it every time. Stocky finds (I hope I'm interpreting right, apologies if not) that the enforced restriction of liberty is just too much, even though the threat is very real. That's not wrong, it's personal values. I'm on the other side of that debate to Stocky, but I can respect the argument and Stocky is in no way wrong.
As you say, we all have our tipping point. For some, we all need to stay locked down/restricted until we can be sure opening up will not cause any more deaths. For me, that's absurd. We don't lock down for flu every year. We don't set the speed limit to 20mph everywhere. We accept risks for benefits. We accept deaths for freedoms. I think we could probably go a bit quicker than planned, but I accept there are uncertainties and the government has been burned on this before, so I can accept the caution.
I'm not on SAGE, nor an expert in infectious disease, but I have worked with PHE/Dept of Health on projections for noncommunicable diseases. Don't get too concerned about the pessimistic reports. PHE/the government always want the worst case scenarios in addition to various 'realistic' scenarios. They like the certainty of a worst case scenario - as a scientist you're basically telling them there are lots of ifs, buts and maybes in all the other scenarios and it depends on actions and a lot of random, unpredictable factors. But with the worst case scenario you're essentially saying to them, I'm certain, it won't get worse than this. They tend to fixate on that certainty and ignore much of the rest (which can be frustrating!). When the worst case scenarios are no longer that troubling, that's when the politicians in charge of this will relax.
The public pessimism at the moment, I think, is designed to get people to stick with the restrictions as they're lifted under the current plan. We're not yet far enough with vaccinations to stop another wave of cases, at least. The unvaccinated are those more likely to spread and more likely to be infected. I expect the numbers will show that we could still get hospitals into trouble if the unvaccinated population goes crazy. We do need people to keep following restrictions now (although, as suggested yesterday by Andy Cooke, I think, it would be nice to loosen up earlier on outside stuff which is low risk). Come the summer, unless the unexpected happens, the worst case scenarios will no longer be scary and there's no reason we can't all crack on.
It's more than personal values. Our liberal democratic structures, which defines our rights and liberties etc, over-arch everything. These rights and liberties are not personal values, they are not fetishes, they are categorical imperatives. I'm astonished that what has happened can be legal. No government should have the power to override liberal democracy for a natural occurrence such as a virus.
So, @Stocky, I still don't quite get what you mean by the charge that the government overrode liberal democracy to fight the virus.
Maybe if we look at a practical example. When this thing kicked off on March 23 with Johnson's seminal "Stay at Home" broadcast - initiating what came to be known as Lockdown - are you saying that iyo this ought to have been a request not an instruction?
That codifying the restrictions in law was a violation of our liberal democracy?
I`m not a lawyer and to be honest I`m not sure. Miss Cyclefree and others are better equipped to answer this than I am. I want to answer your question with a simple "Yes" because removing rights and freedoms by law is obviously a violation of liberal democracy. But, though uncomfortable, I supported the initial lockdown which was for a maximum of twelve weeks and was expressly to stave off disaster in the health services. I was horrified that it was extended and wrote an header about it at the beginning of April. I felt that the seriousness of Covid in the round was being underplayed (and I think it still is). Johnson, of course, used wartime analogies but I don't feel this is appropriate with a natural event.
I don`t think that a particular government of any stripe should have the ability to over-ride the overarching system of governance that it works beneath and which elected it. As I said yesterday, how can it be that "details" such as leaving the EU / Scotland splitting MUST be tested by at least one referendum and strong parliamentary support (I know) but abandoning the whole system even for a short period does not. (Don't misunderstand me - I`m not arguing in favour of referenda.)
Sorry I can`t give a better answer but at least it`s an honest one. You won't feel as uncomfortable about all this as I do because I don`t think that you, along with others who are strongly left wing, see individual liberty as a categorical imperative. (Indeed, you described it a while back as a "fetish".) But you have to accept that we operate beneath a system that DOES regard liberty as such. I partly see this as an attempt to weaken liberal democracy to be honest. And it`s working.
Ok, thanks for v good answer. More of a feel thing, then, and I don't say that as a criticism.
I surely don't see personal liberty as a fetish (!) - that would have been me responding to what I considered to be people being a bit 1st world and precious on the subject - but I guess you're right that I don't elevate it above all else as some others do.
But I'm not totally on the opposite side of the debate. As examples, I think there was too much micro-managing legislation on mixing. That the care home regime was inhumane. The roadmap is probably on the cautious side. Vaxports are a bad idea. The emergency powers should not have been extended for 6 months. Making travel out of the country illegal is OTT.
Going back to the basics of what actually happened, the thing I think people have to remember is that stopping the NHS collapsing was the driver and the NHS did (just about) collapse in both the 1st and the 2nd wave. So, for me, on the big picture rather than the detail, this is a strong piece of circumstantial evidence against the charge that we overreacted to Covid 19.
Agree with all of this. There is the world of difference between brining in restrictions when one is at the start of a pandemic with unknown outcomes and no prophylactic medicine and bringing in new or extending existing measures when the nature of the contagion is understood, the medicines are in place and shown to be working and case numbers are consequently collapsing.
In the first instance the Government is showing sensible and necessary caution. In the second it looks horribly like they are trying to use the remaining fear of the virus to drive through unnecessary and authoritarian laws for the future.
Yes, it's why the 'You didn't complaint before' strand of argument is a bit misplaced in my opinion. Context matters, but things need to be proportionate. People as diverse as cyclefree or contrarian may argue that the earlier stuff was already disproportionate, for different reasons, but more people will feel that now, and it doesn't automatically mean they were wrong before, as the situation is different.
Comments
I’d be tempted to buy a place there tomorrow if it weren’t for the yawning distance
@kinabalu
I`m not a lawyer and to be honest I`m not sure. Miss Cyclefree and others are better equipped to answer this than I am. I want to answer your question with a simple "Yes" because removing rights and freedoms by law is obviously a violation of liberal democracy. But, though uncomfortable, I supported the initial lockdown which was for a maximum of twelve weeks and was expressly to stave off disaster in the health services. I was horrified that it was extended and wrote an header about it at the beginning of April. I felt that the seriousness of Covid in the round was being underplayed (and I think it still is). Johnson, of course, used wartime analogies but I don't feel this is appropriate with a natural event.
I don`t think that a particular government of any stripe should have the ability to over-ride the overarching system of governance that it works beneath and which elected it. As I said yesterday, how can it be that "details" such as leaving the EU / Scotland splitting MUST be tested by at least one referendum and strong parliamentary support (I know) but abandoning the whole system even for a short period does not. (Don't misunderstand me - I`m not arguing in favour of referenda.)
Sorry I can`t give a better answer but at least it`s an honest one. You won't feel as uncomfortable about all this as I do because I don`t think that you, along with others who are strongly left wing, see individual liberty as a categorical imperative. (Indeed, you described it a while back as a "fetish".) But you have to accept that we operate beneath a system that DOES regard liberty as such. I partly see this as an attempt to weaken liberal democracy to be honest. And it`s working.
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
Do you have a start date in mind?
Covid testing from the UK side for all HGVs drivers coming into UK from France and mainland Europe
Asda store workers may have won this battle in their long running equal pay claim - but the war is far from over.
The Supreme Court has ruled that for the purposes of equal pay the work of the mainly male distribution workers can be compared to the mainly female shop floor workers.
But next they need to prove their work is of equal value - in terms of skills and training.
And finally that gender is the key reason that their pay is different.
I find this story utterly bizarre. If the work is the same value, why don’t the women apply for warehouse jobs?
I’ll tell you why, the jobs are not the same and it’s much nicer working in a heated/air conditioned supermarket than in a freezing cold/boiling hot warehouse.
Because sometimes its just showing a picture, sometimes its about disrespect etc, but the response of protesting and claiming victimhood as a cover to impose values is very very rarely proportionate to the instigating event.
Give an inch and people take a foot.
https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1375420152691503107?s=21
How do you trace the lineage from the Commission to the consuls?
* Cromwell broke it, but then it was restored to Charles II.
https://twitter.com/amcarmichaelMP/status/1375420015499960326
Liberal party on its way back?
https://twitter.com/KennyFarq/status/1375422701213474817?s=20
https://twitter.com/alex_m_orr/status/1375423014817386501?s=20
I know that oil, gas and container ships use Suez.
I do not know whether there are ships that take wood through, or are similar. That's why I raised the point of the ships.
If shop workers wanted to be paid as warehouse staff then why not apply for a job in the warehouse?
If they were denied work in the warehouse due to their gender that would be sexual discrimination. This is farcical.
https://twitter.com/andydphilip/status/1375417755994894339
He had a legitimate, if not entirely convincing, claim on succession.
The former Supreme Court judge warned restrictions on Britons' freedoms could last as long as rationing after the Second World War. He said it was 'politically unrealistic' to expect the Government to backtrack on social controls anytime soon because the public had become so used to them. Lord Sumption suggested Britons had actually started to take comfort in restrictions because they made them feel safe."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9405595/Masks-social-distancing-place-10-YEARS-Lord-Sumption-claims.html
So how could he be legitimate?
On your point about smashed statues in English churches that is an excellent comparison. Islam is about 400 years out of date.
Mandatory mask wearing is working a treat in Europe at preventing infections.
Maybe "legitimate" was a poor choice of word. He was related, at a distance, to the Anglo-Saxon kings.
The Royal lines were reunited when an Anglo Saxon Queen of Scotland married Henry I of England
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_tree_of_British_monarchs
BBC News channel some idiot woman from 'The Independent SAGE' arguing that we should not end lockdown and should tighten controls because new cases are up very slightly over the last 2 weeks (although the rise has now levelled off). BBC presenter doing nothing to challenge her fear mongering.
On a completely different subject, news item on Sky. Joe Biden showing a good sense of humour in his press conference when asked why he hadn't started his campaign for re-election yet when his predecessor already had at this point. Biden's response - "Well he needed to." followed by a laugh and then "oh I do miss him".
Good response showing a human side.
She seems to have nailed the inherent contradiction in this non-policy about pub 'vaxports' –– if we aren't going to bring in the policy until everyone has been offered a vax, why would we need it anyway?
Regardless of the rights and wrongs, the idea is sheer illogical nonsense.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Indeed, many protestants see any images of Christ as idolatrous. Many believe that the cross should not be seen with an image of Christ on it as he "came down from the cross". All the more reason why the CofE's recent pronouncement that they will "remove images that cause offence" maybe a little tricky
In 2020 America experienced a terrible surge in murder. Why?
A modern murder mystery" (£)
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/03/27/in-2020-america-experienced-a-terrible-surge-in-murder-why
The article mentions that 787 homicides took place in Chicago in 2020, a city with a population of about 2.7 million people. 787 is probably more than took place in any single European country, including Germany, UK, Italy, etc.
On the second, Biden is perennially underrated – expect by the US electorate itself, which is giving him record approval ratings. So I should say, a lot of people who don't matter a jot underrate him.
I surely don't see personal liberty as a fetish (!) - that would have been me responding to what I considered to be people being a bit 1st world and precious on the subject - but I guess you're right that I don't elevate it above all else as some others do.
But I'm not totally on the opposite side of the debate. As examples, I think there was too much micro-managing legislation on mixing. That the care home regime was inhumane. The roadmap is probably on the cautious side. Vaxports are a bad idea. The emergency powers should not have been extended for 6 months. Making travel out of the country illegal is OTT.
Going back to the basics of what actually happened, the thing I think people have to remember is that stopping the NHS collapsing was the driver and the NHS did (just about) collapse in both the 1st and the 2nd wave. So, for me, on the big picture rather than the detail, this is a strong piece of circumstantial evidence against the charge that we overreacted to Covid 19.
The same precautionary nonsense that has got the EU countries into such a mess over vaccine refusal.
But there's a big difference between saying "never show an image of Mohammed" and "in 99.9 percent of cases showing an infantile and offensive image of Mohammed in a classroom is unlikely to be productive of good learning outcomes, so please don't do it"
There must be lots of people (not least Muslims!) who believe in teachers being allowed to teach difficult or controversial subjects, but don't want to be put in the position of seeming to defend stupid cartoons.
No, both images are offensive to some.
That doesn't justify anything.
If you want to support other peoples fundamentalism, then be honest with yourself.
Or go compliant about the Piss Christ...
I have no idea of Salmond seeking SNP alternatives would make a difference, but if he instead were to say despite it all, vote SNP?
How many religions have I offended by doing this?
Compute this in the Church Times:
"How Life of Brian drew me to Christianity" by Rachel Mann
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2019/27-september/comment/opinion/how-life-of-brian-drew-me-to-christianity
Rachel Mann is a Trans Vicar.
SHOW ME THE RISE!
To previous: Who are these "many Protestants"? I'll give you "a few, peripheral".
It's about appearing reasonable, whilst leaving open the option of acting unreasonably. If anyone questions Macron's comments, you just point to the 'official' statement.
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/03/nyregion/preliminary-1991-figures-show-drop-in-homicides.html
In the first instance the Government is showing sensible and necessary caution. In the second it looks horribly like they are trying to use the remaining fear of the virus to drive through unnecessary and authoritarian laws for the future.
They also seem to have adopted the theory that the blasphemer *belongs* to God - punishing them yourself is usurping Gods prerogative.
It’s been something waiting to happen in the private sector for years.
Good day