Add together Labour and LibDem polling numbers and you'd get that number saying "Yeah, we'd love ANY means to stop the Tories shafting us, election after election....." Until they get power, when they quite like FFPTP - and kinda forget to change it.
Jeezo, if I’d ever known it I’d forgotten that Broony wanted kids to pledge allegiance to the flag.
Quite an interesting overview of how the UJ has been used and marketed by various governments over the years. Not sure if the current iteration of scatter cushions and the image of a stripped off BJ leaping on a blowsy grifter wrapped in the fleg will sweep the nation.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
I agree, but at the same time I'm aware that the clear separation that exists in our minds between religion and race/ethnic group is very much a Western/Christian idea. To most people in the Arab world, to be Muslim and to be Arab are one and the same thing. (This is also what lies behind Modi's reconception of India as an explicitly Hindu state.) I think they would struggle to understand the perspective that you can be as offensive as you like about someone's religion, but race is off-limits.
Mr. Pioneers, the absence of an actual Leave prospectus was the reason such an attack couldn't be made (or a defence of leaving on that basis). The absence of such was the strangest decision Cameron made as it was both legitimate and would've helped his side.
Instead, it just became pro/anti the EU rather than the current arrangement (as was) versus a specific alternative.
But David was an idiot as we can more demonstrate with his decision to work for Greensill thinking it would make him his millions.
Add together Labour and LibDem polling numbers and you'd get that number saying "Yeah, we'd love ANY means to stop the Tories shafting us, election after election....." Until they get power, when they quite like FFPTP - and kinda forget to change it.
People always assume that it would favour them. In practice a straight application would have produced a Con-UKIP coalition in 2015, for example. 2017 would probably have seen TM hold together a similar coalition, although 2019 would certainly have been much tighter*
There is also a quota issue. Presumably NI (and Speaker) would be exempt, what about Scotland and Wales?
(*Of course people change the way they vote under PR, but it's difficult to see the mathematics changing too much.)
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
I think you have to be sensitive about religion - I remember Jehovah's Witnesses in my junior school being excused from assembly, which contained CofE propaganda - but I'm inclined to think that we'd be better off just scrapping RE from the curriculum. I don't want kids learning about religions if it is a simply promotion of religions.
Yes, I think the practice and promotion of religion should be kept in the private sphere. However it is a valid and fascinating topic of study from the historical angle. If I had my time again I"d probably have done that instead of Maths.
Add together Labour and LibDem polling numbers and you'd get that number saying "Yeah, we'd love ANY means to stop the Tories shafting us, election after election....." Until they get power, when they quite like FFPTP - and kinda forget to change it.
People always assume that it would favour them. In practice a straight application would have produced a Con-UKIP coalition in 2015, for example. 2017 would probably have seen TM hold together a similar coalition, although 2019 would certainly have been much tighter*
There is also a quota issue. Presumably NI (and Speaker) would be exempt, what about Scotland and Wales?
(*Of course people change the way they vote under PR, but it's difficult to see the mathematics changing too much.)
It's not comparable in the slightest considering Labour would immediately break into 2 parties at the least.
Wait until Dominic Cummings gets hold of the 31% who “don’t know”....
You mean that the manifestoes all get thrown in the bin after the election, and the politicians stitch up the voters by deciding among themselves which policies will be enacted?
Add together Labour and LibDem polling numbers and you'd get that number saying "Yeah, we'd love ANY means to stop the Tories shafting us, election after election....." Until they get power, when they quite like FFPTP - and kinda forget to change it.
You are being very cynical. That maybe be true for some people, but I would like to think that most people want it because they believe it is the right thing to do.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
I agree, but at the same time I'm aware that the clear separation that exists in our minds between religion and race/ethnic group is very much a Western/Christian idea. To most people in the Arab world, to be Muslim and to be Arab are one and the same thing. (This is also what lies behind Modi's reconception of India as an explicitly Hindu state.) I think they would struggle to understand the perspective that you can be as offensive as you like about someone's religion, but race is off-limits.
That's their problem.
We've been through the Enlightenment. I have no intention of throwing that away.
Looks increasingly like the thing Biden will be known for in history is being the “we are not alone in the universe” president. When this many senior political officials are queuing up on TV to only barely stop short of saying it, it can’t be long before the President decides he may as well go the whole hog and etch his place in history.
Once you’ve done that, you’d really need to have an extreme personal circumstance to walk away. I therefore think he’ll run. How the world will look and feel after everyone’s absorbed this info who knows.
I think if Biden said "we are not alone in the universe" then that would be proof of dementia, not aliens.
You are saying that because you have not been paying attention and/or you can’t confront the enormity of what’s being said by increasingly senior figures.
Alternatively you add 2 plus 2 together to equal banana.
There are always some people willing to say the truth is out there, doesn't make Mulder and Scully real.
I have never seen an episode of the X Files or Star Trek. I didn’t have a lot of interest in it until the formal release of unexplainable evidence by the US military and the subsequent public statements by senior officials who have no incentive to lie and every incentive to keep quiet.
I get that you prefer to jest than confront what’s happening. This happened in the Uk and elsewhere with Covid. At a time it was abundantly clear in Asia what was happening, our next king but one was making jokes about having a cough a film premiere and our Prime Minister was shaking hands with covid patients.
Meanwhile some of us were busy preparing our personal and financial affairs so we could make out like bandits on the markets when the penny dropped for everyone else and be as well prepared as possible for what was coming.
The aliens are very shy though aren't they?
Or maybe it is some adolescents aliens joy riding in front of a Tomcat for a few seconds before disappearing just to wind up the pilot.
On a PB point of order: only if it is an Iranian F-14. The USN doesn't have Tomcats any more ...
Add together Labour and LibDem polling numbers and you'd get that number saying "Yeah, we'd love ANY means to stop the Tories shafting us, election after election....." Until they get power, when they quite like FFPTP - and kinda forget to change it.
? I get why people don’t always follow through to articles from tweets, but not reading the tweet itself..
‘a plurality of both Labour & Conservative voters’
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Your reply bears little relation to my post.
But of course yes - it should not be illegal to cause religiou offence. If such a law was proposed I'd be strongly against.
Add together Labour and LibDem polling numbers and you'd get that number saying "Yeah, we'd love ANY means to stop the Tories shafting us, election after election....." Until they get power, when they quite like FFPTP - and kinda forget to change it.
People always assume that it would favour them. In practice a straight application would have produced a Con-UKIP coalition in 2015, for example. 2017 would probably have seen TM hold together a similar coalition, although 2019 would certainly have been much tighter*
There is also a quota issue. Presumably NI (and Speaker) would be exempt, what about Scotland and Wales?
(*Of course people change the way they vote under PR, but it's difficult to see the mathematics changing too much.)
Hmm. Compare the way the Scots vote for the constituencies and list votes. Not directly comparable to straight FPTP vs PR, not least because the two interact in the Holyrood system, but it does show how the maths can change drastically. Greens and LDs get a lot more MPs for a start, both due to direct and indirect effects (worth voting for them).
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Your reply bears little relation to my post.
But of course yes - it should not be illegal to cause religiou offence. If such a law was proposed I'd be strongly against.
Any other irrelevant banalities to offer?
Its not irrelevant because you were talking about "where to draw the line" against offending Muslims, for which the only right answer is "nowhere". Faith is not above offence.
Where do you draw the line against offending conservatives/socialists/communists/authoritarians? Beliefs are free to be attacked however you want.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
I agree, but at the same time I'm aware that the clear separation that exists in our minds between religion and race/ethnic group is very much a Western/Christian idea. To most people in the Arab world, to be Muslim and to be Arab are one and the same thing. (This is also what lies behind Modi's reconception of India as an explicitly Hindu state.) I think they would struggle to understand the perspective that you can be as offensive as you like about someone's religion, but race is off-limits.
That's their problem.
We've been through the Enlightenment. I have no intention of throwing that away.
The world will be mightily relieved that such a choice is within your gift.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Small businesses have reported a marked drop in exports to the EU as another company bemoaned the post-Brexit “nightmare” of delivery delays and increased costs.
The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), a lobby group, said 35 of the 132 exporters it surveyed had temporarily suspended trade with the EU or stopped it permanently. One in 10 of the exporters surveyed said they were also considering giving up trade with EU customers.
Some smaller business have been badly affected by the overnight change in trade rules on 31 December, with new paperwork and a rush to secure delivery space causing widespread delays and extra costs. UK exports to the EU fell by 41% in January, according to government figures.
There was another report I read over the weekend of a Cheese company who had been vocal enough expressing his frustration on Twitter to get a government minister to ring him. The government said nothing would change to make export to the EU viable again, but had he considered the huge opportunities exporting to places like Canada?
The Tories - formerly the party of business - don't understand how business works. "Can't just just trade with x" is a stupid question. If trade with x was preferable or more profitable or even viable compared to trade with the EU they would already be doing so. Just because the Tories have torpedoed these company's ability to have an export trade with their biggest market doesn't miraculously remove the massive barriers to trade with the rest of the world.
It’s all ME! ME! ME! isn’t it though?
The electorate decided they wanted a different relationship with the EU. It would be great if we could continue to trade with the EU on historical terms while in this new relationship structure.
But if the EU doesn’t want to - as is their right - and the UK doesn’t want to - as is their right - then what the government minister said is absolutely right.
Why should the convenience of their blessed cheese maker be more significant than the wishes of the electorate as a whole?
You're rather missing the point. One of the premises of Brexit was that not only would trade with the EU continue but that new markets would open up. So far we have not had new markets opened up. Rather there have been roll over trade agreements ie the same agreements as we had before.
What is being pointed out is that the opposite appears to be happening. Our ability to export to the EU is being significantly harmed (so the trade deficit in goods so bewailed as a bad consequence of the Single Market by some on here will likely widen) but alternative new - and profitable - markets are simply not there. If it was possible to trade profitably with Canada before don't you think this cheese maker and others would have done it?
The government has wrongly tried to claim these are teething problems. They are not. They are the very deliberate choice made by this government and the government then lied about the consequences of that choice. We are now in a position when in a supposedly United Kingdom suppliers are simply refusing to sell goods to part of the same country because it is practically impossible to do so. That market has been lost, EU markets have been lost and, for many suppliers, markets thousands of miles away are simply not practicable or profitable.
And it's not really ME ME ME either. Exports are how we earn our way in the world. If we can't earn how do we live? The consequences of making it impossible for this cheesemaker and many others like him to export will be borne not just by him but by the rest of us.
Why do you insist on seeing the negative sides of this in isolation? Look at the trade figures for January. Exports to the EU fell by £5.3bn. Imports fell by £8.9bn. The result was that our trade deficit as a whole fell meaning that more of our domestic demand was met by our domestic supply. This boosts growth and domestic employment.
Of course January tells us very little. The figures were enormously distorted by stockpiling in November/December and of course by the lockdown. It will be some time before anything like a clear picture starts to emerge. But when it does my expectation is that EU exports to the UK will fall by more than UK exports to the EU reducing our debilitating trade deficit that we have now run for 20 years a smidgeon. Which will be good for UK growth and UK employment.
Given the distortions of Covid and the relative speed at which the EU and the UK are coming out of lockdown it is likely to be at least a year before the new normal is anything like established. But I remain hopeful it is better than the old normal.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
I agree, but at the same time I'm aware that the clear separation that exists in our minds between religion and race/ethnic group is very much a Western/Christian idea. To most people in the Arab world, to be Muslim and to be Arab are one and the same thing. (This is also what lies behind Modi's reconception of India as an explicitly Hindu state.) I think they would struggle to understand the perspective that you can be as offensive as you like about someone's religion, but race is off-limits.
That's their problem.
We've been through the Enlightenment. I have no intention of throwing that away.
The world will be mightily relieved that such a choice is within your gift.
Its within all of our gift.
It is beholden upon us all to stand up for free speech and civil liberties.
Not that I’m betting on this, but I do t see Biden making it to the end of his first term.
Me neither. 'Aparent health and energy' was an 'interesting' line from the header. Personally I hope a dignified exit can be managed, and that Biden's doctors can make him as happy and comfortable as he can be for the remainder of his life. What's happening at the moment is not pleasant to watch.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
This is not about free speech "extremists" - and what a weaselly phrase that is - a thoroughly dishonest attempt to put those who want to extend freedom and critical thinking on a par with those who want to limit it and close it down.
It's about saying that I - a non-Muslim - should not be expected to pay any regard whatever to the precepts of Islam. It is simply of no interest to me what the rules are on depictions of Mohammed or indeed anything else about him. If I want to draw him or refer to him I can do so in whatever way I choose. There is absolutely nothing special about him as far as any non-Muslim is concerned.
Whereas what is being attempted is to try and make him special to non- Muslims by making us pay regard to Islamic strictures about him. On the entirely spurious grounds of offence or hurt. Spurious - not because the hurt isn't real, it may be, though quite a lot seems confected - but because someone's personal hurt is an utterly irrelevant consideration.
Can I require Muslims to start saying the Our Father and going to confession because I am hurt that they don't recognise Catholicism as the One True Faith? No of course not. It is an utterly silly idea. And it is just as silly when Muslims demand that we pay attention to the tenets of their faith.
Small businesses have reported a marked drop in exports to the EU as another company bemoaned the post-Brexit “nightmare” of delivery delays and increased costs.
The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), a lobby group, said 35 of the 132 exporters it surveyed had temporarily suspended trade with the EU or stopped it permanently. One in 10 of the exporters surveyed said they were also considering giving up trade with EU customers.
Some smaller business have been badly affected by the overnight change in trade rules on 31 December, with new paperwork and a rush to secure delivery space causing widespread delays and extra costs. UK exports to the EU fell by 41% in January, according to government figures.
There was another report I read over the weekend of a Cheese company who had been vocal enough expressing his frustration on Twitter to get a government minister to ring him. The government said nothing would change to make export to the EU viable again, but had he considered the huge opportunities exporting to places like Canada?
The Tories - formerly the party of business - don't understand how business works. "Can't just just trade with x" is a stupid question. If trade with x was preferable or more profitable or even viable compared to trade with the EU they would already be doing so. Just because the Tories have torpedoed these company's ability to have an export trade with their biggest market doesn't miraculously remove the massive barriers to trade with the rest of the world.
It’s all ME! ME! ME! isn’t it though?
The electorate decided they wanted a different relationship with the EU. It would be great if we could continue to trade with the EU on historical terms while in this new relationship structure.
But if the EU doesn’t want to - as is their right - and the UK doesn’t want to - as is their right - then what the government minister said is absolutely right.
Why should the convenience of their blessed cheese maker be more significant than the wishes of the electorate as a whole?
You're rather missing the point. One of the premises of Brexit was that not only would trade with the EU continue but that new markets would open up. So far we have not had new markets opened up. Rather there have been roll over trade agreements ie the same agreements as we had before.
What is being pointed out is that the opposite appears to be happening. Our ability to export to the EU is being significantly harmed (so the trade deficit in goods so bewailed as a bad consequence of the Single Market by some on here will likely widen) but alternative new - and profitable - markets are simply not there. If it was possible to trade profitably with Canada before don't you think this cheese maker and others would have done it?
The government has wrongly tried to claim these are teething problems. They are not. They are the very deliberate choice made by this government and the government then lied about the consequences of that choice. We are now in a position when in a supposedly United Kingdom suppliers are simply refusing to sell goods to part of the same country because it is practically impossible to do so. That market has been lost, EU markets have been lost and, for many suppliers, markets thousands of miles away are simply not practicable or profitable.
And it's not really ME ME ME either. Exports are how we earn our way in the world. If we can't earn how do we live? The consequences of making it impossible for this cheesemaker and many others like him to export will be borne not just by him but by the rest of us.
Why do you insist on seeing the negative sides of this in isolation? Look at the trade figures for January. Exports to the EU fell by £5.3bn. Imports fell by £8.9bn. The result was that our trade deficit as a whole fell meaning that more of our domestic demand was met by our domestic supply. This boosts growth and domestic employment.
Of course January tells us very little. The figures were enormously distorted by stockpiling in November/December and of course by the lockdown. It will be some time before anything like a clear picture starts to emerge. But when it does my expectation is that EU exports to the UK will fall by more than UK exports to the EU reducing our debilitating trade deficit that we have now run for 20 years a smidgeon. Which will be good for UK growth and UK employment.
Given the distortions of Covid and the relative speed at which the EU and the UK are coming out of lockdown it is likely to be at least a year before the new normal is anything like established. But I remain hopeful it is better than the old normal.
Not to forget we were paying net close to a billion pounds a month (and rising) for the privilege of running such a trade deficit.
Yes trade may be marginally harder with Europe in the future, while trade with the rest of the world may be made easier, but it will also be done without making financial contributions to the continent for the privilege of them exporting to us far more than we did in return.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
So - its fine to buy a post card in Iran with a picture of their prophet on it - but it must be banned in the UK because of the risk of violence?
Feck that
Did I say anything should be banned?
Things can be not banned but nevertheless have a default of "avoid". There are plenty of examples of that.
There seems to be something increasingly banned on here however when it comes to these matters - any semblance of insight or nuance.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
So - its fine to buy a post card in Iran with a picture of their prophet on it - but it must be banned in the UK because of the risk of violence?
Feck that
Did I say anything should be banned?
Things can be not banned but nevertheless have a default of "avoid". There are plenty of examples of that.
There seems to be something increasingly banned on here however when it comes to these matters - any semblance of insight or nuance.
Good, because there is no nuance here. Beliefs must face rigorous scrutiny, nothing is off limits, nothing should be avoided.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
I agree, but at the same time I'm aware that the clear separation that exists in our minds between religion and race/ethnic group is very much a Western/Christian idea. To most people in the Arab world, to be Muslim and to be Arab are one and the same thing. (This is also what lies behind Modi's reconception of India as an explicitly Hindu state.) I think they would struggle to understand the perspective that you can be as offensive as you like about someone's religion, but race is off-limits.
The very many Arab Christians wave hello. Of course, they are largely ignored by the West and indeed by too many Arab states, which is part of the problem.
Even if what you say is true, we are not in the Arab world and we are not a credal state so whatever view is taken over there does not - and should not - apply here.
Small businesses have reported a marked drop in exports to the EU as another company bemoaned the post-Brexit “nightmare” of delivery delays and increased costs.
The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), a lobby group, said 35 of the 132 exporters it surveyed had temporarily suspended trade with the EU or stopped it permanently. One in 10 of the exporters surveyed said they were also considering giving up trade with EU customers.
Some smaller business have been badly affected by the overnight change in trade rules on 31 December, with new paperwork and a rush to secure delivery space causing widespread delays and extra costs. UK exports to the EU fell by 41% in January, according to government figures.
There was another report I read over the weekend of a Cheese company who had been vocal enough expressing his frustration on Twitter to get a government minister to ring him. The government said nothing would change to make export to the EU viable again, but had he considered the huge opportunities exporting to places like Canada?
The Tories - formerly the party of business - don't understand how business works. "Can't just just trade with x" is a stupid question. If trade with x was preferable or more profitable or even viable compared to trade with the EU they would already be doing so. Just because the Tories have torpedoed these company's ability to have an export trade with their biggest market doesn't miraculously remove the massive barriers to trade with the rest of the world.
It’s all ME! ME! ME! isn’t it though?
The electorate decided they wanted a different relationship with the EU. It would be great if we could continue to trade with the EU on historical terms while in this new relationship structure.
But if the EU doesn’t want to - as is their right - and the UK doesn’t want to - as is their right - then what the government minister said is absolutely right.
Why should the convenience of their blessed cheese maker be more significant than the wishes of the electorate as a whole?
You're rather missing the point. One of the premises of Brexit was that not only would trade with the EU continue but that new markets would open up. So far we have not had new markets opened up. Rather there have been roll over trade agreements ie the same agreements as we had before.
What is being pointed out is that the opposite appears to be happening. Our ability to export to the EU is being significantly harmed (so the trade deficit in goods so bewailed as a bad consequence of the Single Market by some on here will likely widen) but alternative new - and profitable - markets are simply not there. If it was possible to trade profitably with Canada before don't you think this cheese maker and others would have done it?
The government has wrongly tried to claim these are teething problems. They are not. They are the very deliberate choice made by this government and the government then lied about the consequences of that choice. We are now in a position when in a supposedly United Kingdom suppliers are simply refusing to sell goods to part of the same country because it is practically impossible to do so. That market has been lost, EU markets have been lost and, for many suppliers, markets thousands of miles away are simply not practicable or profitable.
And it's not really ME ME ME either. Exports are how we earn our way in the world. If we can't earn how do we live? The consequences of making it impossible for this cheesemaker and many others like him to export will be borne not just by him but by the rest of us.
Why do you insist on seeing the negative sides of this in isolation? Look at the trade figures for January. Exports to the EU fell by £5.3bn. Imports fell by £8.9bn. The result was that our trade deficit as a whole fell meaning that more of our domestic demand was met by our domestic supply. This boosts growth and domestic employment.
Of course January tells us very little. The figures were enormously distorted by stockpiling in November/December and of course by the lockdown. It will be some time before anything like a clear picture starts to emerge. But when it does my expectation is that EU exports to the UK will fall by more than UK exports to the EU reducing our debilitating trade deficit that we have now run for 20 years a smidgeon. Which will be good for UK growth and UK employment.
Given the distortions of Covid and the relative speed at which the EU and the UK are coming out of lockdown it is likely to be at least a year before the new normal is anything like established. But I remain hopeful it is better than the old normal.
Not to forget we were paying net close to a billion pounds a month (and rising) for the privilege of running such a trade deficit.
Yes trade may be marginally harder with Europe in the future, while trade with the rest of the world may be made easier, but it will also be done without making financial contributions to the continent for the privilege of them exporting to us far more than we did in return.
Personally I remain of the view that the EU trading advantage with us was so significant that they will look over time to restore trade to what it was as much as possible. Whether that is actually in our interests is something that we need to give some serious thought to.
Small businesses have reported a marked drop in exports to the EU as another company bemoaned the post-Brexit “nightmare” of delivery delays and increased costs.
The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), a lobby group, said 35 of the 132 exporters it surveyed had temporarily suspended trade with the EU or stopped it permanently. One in 10 of the exporters surveyed said they were also considering giving up trade with EU customers.
Some smaller business have been badly affected by the overnight change in trade rules on 31 December, with new paperwork and a rush to secure delivery space causing widespread delays and extra costs. UK exports to the EU fell by 41% in January, according to government figures.
There was another report I read over the weekend of a Cheese company who had been vocal enough expressing his frustration on Twitter to get a government minister to ring him. The government said nothing would change to make export to the EU viable again, but had he considered the huge opportunities exporting to places like Canada?
The Tories - formerly the party of business - don't understand how business works. "Can't just just trade with x" is a stupid question. If trade with x was preferable or more profitable or even viable compared to trade with the EU they would already be doing so. Just because the Tories have torpedoed these company's ability to have an export trade with their biggest market doesn't miraculously remove the massive barriers to trade with the rest of the world.
It’s all ME! ME! ME! isn’t it though?
The electorate decided they wanted a different relationship with the EU. It would be great if we could continue to trade with the EU on historical terms while in this new relationship structure.
But if the EU doesn’t want to - as is their right - and the UK doesn’t want to - as is their right - then what the government minister said is absolutely right.
Why should the convenience of their blessed cheese maker be more significant than the wishes of the electorate as a whole?
You're rather missing the point. One of the premises of Brexit was that not only would trade with the EU continue but that new markets would open up. So far we have not had new markets opened up. Rather there have been roll over trade agreements ie the same agreements as we had before.
What is being pointed out is that the opposite appears to be happening. Our ability to export to the EU is being significantly harmed (so the trade deficit in goods so bewailed as a bad consequence of the Single Market by some on here will likely widen) but alternative new - and profitable - markets are simply not there. If it was possible to trade profitably with Canada before don't you think this cheese maker and others would have done it?
The government has wrongly tried to claim these are teething problems. They are not. They are the very deliberate choice made by this government and the government then lied about the consequences of that choice. We are now in a position when in a supposedly United Kingdom suppliers are simply refusing to sell goods to part of the same country because it is practically impossible to do so. That market has been lost, EU markets have been lost and, for many suppliers, markets thousands of miles away are simply not practicable or profitable.
And it's not really ME ME ME either. Exports are how we earn our way in the world. If we can't earn how do we live? The consequences of making it impossible for this cheesemaker and many others like him to export will be borne not just by him but by the rest of us.
Why do you insist on seeing the negative sides of this in isolation? Look at the trade figures for January. Exports to the EU fell by £5.3bn. Imports fell by £8.9bn. The result was that our trade deficit as a whole fell meaning that more of our domestic demand was met by our domestic supply. This boosts growth and domestic employment.
Of course January tells us very little. The figures were enormously distorted by stockpiling in November/December and of course by the lockdown. It will be some time before anything like a clear picture starts to emerge. But when it does my expectation is that EU exports to the UK will fall by more than UK exports to the EU reducing our debilitating trade deficit that we have now run for 20 years a smidgeon. Which will be good for UK growth and UK employment.
Given the distortions of Covid and the relative speed at which the EU and the UK are coming out of lockdown it is likely to be at least a year before the new normal is anything like established. But I remain hopeful it is better than the old normal.
Imports falling doesn't necessarily mean demand was met by domestic supply (with the consequent boost for producers here). It might just mean that demand fell (due to pre-January stockpiling, delays in imports, delays in purchases, the UK being broke post-Brexit - you can delete some of those according to personal preferences!).
I agree that January tells us very little from looking at overall figures. There was stockpiling before. There were some one-off problems in the new regime (and some long term problems). There was also a big wave of Covid and everyone stuck at home with more uncertainty. We all, on both sides, need to wait a bit to assess the effects (we can point to genuine problems/successes, but based just on one, unusual, month on trade figures).
(A particular bugbear of mine is those comparing January 2021 with January 2020, ignoring the small issue of a global pandemic having some impact on economies in the meantime)
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
The issue is that Cameron allowed them to make it moon on a stick by not tying down what the outside the EU position would be.
How exactly do you think he could have done that?
He explained how badly trade would be fucked by Brexit.
The voters ignored him.
Now trade is fucked, the Brexiteers still claim it isn't!
Like Indyref. The SNP wrote a whitepaper that includes the words once in a lifetime.
Zoomers still claim those words had no place in the campaign.
I am sad that the Brexiteers sold the voting public a lie, but as ever, the blame for that lies with the people who wanted it, advocated it and campaigned for it.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
This is not about free speech "extremists" - and what a weaselly phrase that is - a thoroughly dishonest attempt to put those who want to extend freedom and critical thinking on a par with those who want to limit it and close it down.
It's about saying that I - a non-Muslim - should not be expected to pay any regard whatever to the precepts of Islam. It is simply of no interest to me what the rules are on depictions of Mohammed or indeed anything else about him. If I want to draw him or refer to him I can do so in whatever way I choose. There is absolutely nothing special about him as far as any non-Muslim is concerned.
Whereas what is being attempted is to try and make him special to non- Muslims by making us pay regard to Islamic strictures about him. On the entirely spurious grounds of offence or hurt. Spurious - not because the hurt isn't real, it may be, though quite a lot seems confected - but because someone's personal hurt is an utterly irrelevant consideration.
Can I require Muslims to start saying the Our Father and going to confession because I am hurt that they don't recognise Catholicism as the One True Faith? No of course not. It is an utterly silly idea. And it is just as silly when Muslims demand that we pay attention to the tenets of their faith.
Which is fair enough. But is it fair for someone in a position of authority to subject their charges to such offence ? There's a difference between a teacher's choices, and the rules of open exchange in wider society, and the line drawn is not the same at all. Pupils, after all, legally have no choice over whether or not to be in school.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
This is not about free speech "extremists" - and what a weaselly phrase that is - a thoroughly dishonest attempt to put those who want to extend freedom and critical thinking on a par with those who want to limit it and close it down.
It's about saying that I - a non-Muslim - should not be expected to pay any regard whatever to the precepts of Islam. It is simply of no interest to me what the rules are on depictions of Mohammed or indeed anything else about him. If I want to draw him or refer to him I can do so in whatever way I choose. There is absolutely nothing special about him as far as any non-Muslim is concerned.
Whereas what is being attempted is to try and make him special to non- Muslims by making us pay regard to Islamic strictures about him. On the entirely spurious grounds of offence or hurt. Spurious - not because the hurt isn't real, it may be, though quite a lot seems confected - but because someone's personal hurt is an utterly irrelevant consideration.
Can I require Muslims to start saying the Our Father and going to confession because I am hurt that they don't recognise Catholicism as the One True Faith? No of course not. It is an utterly silly idea. And it is just as silly when Muslims demand that we pay attention to the tenets of their faith.
It is also intolerable that the reason for such recognition is the threat of criminal violence. We have already seen what ignoring crime for the sake of 'community cohesion' does. People who attempt violence should be arrested, charged, and put away. Community cohesion can only be the beneficiary of such an approach.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Freedom of speech really does not include people not going out of their way to sneer at you! Of course they can.
Whether they should or not, is up to both them and societal norms. Whether they are allowed to is up to the law, and the law should protect their right to sneer at whoever they please. The point at which the law on free speech needs to be moderated is when it spills over into violence not sneering.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
You are describing politeness and good manners. But what you ignore is that these cannot be demanded by means of threats. If I am polite it is by my choice not because I fear being attacked if I am not.
A group which demand this in this way has no right to it. We are and have been offensive to all sorts of people throughout our history - look at 18th century cartoons for instance. Much of this was scurrilous, lurid, vulgar, tasteless, horrible etc. So what? It was a way of saying and showing that no-one was beyond challenge, no-one should think themselves beyond challenge and no-one, however humble or unimportant, should be afraid to challenge.
And I am afraid that this message has got be be made repeatedly to the Islamic bigots and extremists and all the other religious bigots and extremists until they get the point. Because wanting to be beyond challenge is exactly what they want. And this is intolerable in a free society.
The articles by Matthew Syed and Matthew Paris in the Times this weekend put it admirably. Very well worth reading.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
This is not about free speech "extremists" - and what a weaselly phrase that is - a thoroughly dishonest attempt to put those who want to extend freedom and critical thinking on a par with those who want to limit it and close it down.
It's about saying that I - a non-Muslim - should not be expected to pay any regard whatever to the precepts of Islam. It is simply of no interest to me what the rules are on depictions of Mohammed or indeed anything else about him. If I want to draw him or refer to him I can do so in whatever way I choose. There is absolutely nothing special about him as far as any non-Muslim is concerned.
Whereas what is being attempted is to try and make him special to non- Muslims by making us pay regard to Islamic strictures about him. On the entirely spurious grounds of offence or hurt. Spurious - not because the hurt isn't real, it may be, though quite a lot seems confected - but because someone's personal hurt is an utterly irrelevant consideration.
Can I require Muslims to start saying the Our Father and going to confession because I am hurt that they don't recognise Catholicism as the One True Faith? No of course not. It is an utterly silly idea. And it is just as silly when Muslims demand that we pay attention to the tenets of their faith.
Which is fair enough. But is it fair for someone in a position of authority to subject their charges to such offence ? There's a difference between a teacher's choices, and the rules of open exchange in wider society, and the line drawn is not the same at all. Pupils, after all, legally have no choice over whether or not to be in school.
I think there is also the point that the teacher might have also considered the demographic of the pupils' families. @Cyclefree makes good points, but I can imagine (particularly as I was brought up as a RC) that if a teacher at a Roman Catholic school decided to show pupils "The Last Temptation of Christ" or even "The Life of Brian" (my favourite film!) there would be massive outrage expressed by many RC parents
Small businesses have reported a marked drop in exports to the EU as another company bemoaned the post-Brexit “nightmare” of delivery delays and increased costs.
The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), a lobby group, said 35 of the 132 exporters it surveyed had temporarily suspended trade with the EU or stopped it permanently. One in 10 of the exporters surveyed said they were also considering giving up trade with EU customers.
Some smaller business have been badly affected by the overnight change in trade rules on 31 December, with new paperwork and a rush to secure delivery space causing widespread delays and extra costs. UK exports to the EU fell by 41% in January, according to government figures.
There was another report I read over the weekend of a Cheese company who had been vocal enough expressing his frustration on Twitter to get a government minister to ring him. The government said nothing would change to make export to the EU viable again, but had he considered the huge opportunities exporting to places like Canada?
The Tories - formerly the party of business - don't understand how business works. "Can't just just trade with x" is a stupid question. If trade with x was preferable or more profitable or even viable compared to trade with the EU they would already be doing so. Just because the Tories have torpedoed these company's ability to have an export trade with their biggest market doesn't miraculously remove the massive barriers to trade with the rest of the world.
It’s all ME! ME! ME! isn’t it though?
The electorate decided they wanted a different relationship with the EU. It would be great if we could continue to trade with the EU on historical terms while in this new relationship structure.
But if the EU doesn’t want to - as is their right - and the UK doesn’t want to - as is their right - then what the government minister said is absolutely right.
Why should the convenience of their blessed cheese maker be more significant than the wishes of the electorate as a whole?
You're rather missing the point. One of the premises of Brexit was that not only would trade with the EU continue but that new markets would open up. So far we have not had new markets opened up. Rather there have been roll over trade agreements ie the same agreements as we had before.
What is being pointed out is that the opposite appears to be happening. Our ability to export to the EU is being significantly harmed (so the trade deficit in goods so bewailed as a bad consequence of the Single Market by some on here will likely widen) but alternative new - and profitable - markets are simply not there. If it was possible to trade profitably with Canada before don't you think this cheese maker and others would have done it?
The government has wrongly tried to claim these are teething problems. They are not. They are the very deliberate choice made by this government and the government then lied about the consequences of that choice. We are now in a position when in a supposedly United Kingdom suppliers are simply refusing to sell goods to part of the same country because it is practically impossible to do so. That market has been lost, EU markets have been lost and, for many suppliers, markets thousands of miles away are simply not practicable or profitable.
And it's not really ME ME ME either. Exports are how we earn our way in the world. If we can't earn how do we live? The consequences of making it impossible for this cheesemaker and many others like him to export will be borne not just by him but by the rest of us.
Why do you insist on seeing the negative sides of this in isolation? Look at the trade figures for January. Exports to the EU fell by £5.3bn. Imports fell by £8.9bn. The result was that our trade deficit as a whole fell meaning that more of our domestic demand was met by our domestic supply. This boosts growth and domestic employment.
Of course January tells us very little. The figures were enormously distorted by stockpiling in November/December and of course by the lockdown. It will be some time before anything like a clear picture starts to emerge. But when it does my expectation is that EU exports to the UK will fall by more than UK exports to the EU reducing our debilitating trade deficit that we have now run for 20 years a smidgeon. Which will be good for UK growth and UK employment.
Given the distortions of Covid and the relative speed at which the EU and the UK are coming out of lockdown it is likely to be at least a year before the new normal is anything like established. But I remain hopeful it is better than the old normal.
Not to forget we were paying net close to a billion pounds a month (and rising) for the privilege of running such a trade deficit.
Yes trade may be marginally harder with Europe in the future, while trade with the rest of the world may be made easier, but it will also be done without making financial contributions to the continent for the privilege of them exporting to us far more than we did in return.
Personally I remain of the view that the EU trading advantage with us was so significant that they will look over time to restore trade to what it was as much as possible. Whether that is actually in our interests is something that we need to give some serious thought to.
Currently EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks. It is our exports to them which are being hampered by our own government. This would seem to be the complete opposite of what you want.
I forget, was it in Myanmar that the entirely mythical squadron of mint, crated Spitfires was waiting to be dug up a few years ago? The Telegraph almost wanked itself to death over that one.
Small businesses have reported a marked drop in exports to the EU as another company bemoaned the post-Brexit “nightmare” of delivery delays and increased costs.
The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), a lobby group, said 35 of the 132 exporters it surveyed had temporarily suspended trade with the EU or stopped it permanently. One in 10 of the exporters surveyed said they were also considering giving up trade with EU customers.
Some smaller business have been badly affected by the overnight change in trade rules on 31 December, with new paperwork and a rush to secure delivery space causing widespread delays and extra costs. UK exports to the EU fell by 41% in January, according to government figures.
There was another report I read over the weekend of a Cheese company who had been vocal enough expressing his frustration on Twitter to get a government minister to ring him. The government said nothing would change to make export to the EU viable again, but had he considered the huge opportunities exporting to places like Canada?
The Tories - formerly the party of business - don't understand how business works. "Can't just just trade with x" is a stupid question. If trade with x was preferable or more profitable or even viable compared to trade with the EU they would already be doing so. Just because the Tories have torpedoed these company's ability to have an export trade with their biggest market doesn't miraculously remove the massive barriers to trade with the rest of the world.
It’s all ME! ME! ME! isn’t it though?
The electorate decided they wanted a different relationship with the EU. It would be great if we could continue to trade with the EU on historical terms while in this new relationship structure.
But if the EU doesn’t want to - as is their right - and the UK doesn’t want to - as is their right - then what the government minister said is absolutely right.
Why should the convenience of their blessed cheese maker be more significant than the wishes of the electorate as a whole?
You're rather missing the point. One of the premises of Brexit was that not only would trade with the EU continue but that new markets would open up. So far we have not had new markets opened up. Rather there have been roll over trade agreements ie the same agreements as we had before.
What is being pointed out is that the opposite appears to be happening. Our ability to export to the EU is being significantly harmed (so the trade deficit in goods so bewailed as a bad consequence of the Single Market by some on here will likely widen) but alternative new - and profitable - markets are simply not there. If it was possible to trade profitably with Canada before don't you think this cheese maker and others would have done it?
The government has wrongly tried to claim these are teething problems. They are not. They are the very deliberate choice made by this government and the government then lied about the consequences of that choice. We are now in a position when in a supposedly United Kingdom suppliers are simply refusing to sell goods to part of the same country because it is practically impossible to do so. That market has been lost, EU markets have been lost and, for many suppliers, markets thousands of miles away are simply not practicable or profitable.
And it's not really ME ME ME either. Exports are how we earn our way in the world. If we can't earn how do we live? The consequences of making it impossible for this cheesemaker and many others like him to export will be borne not just by him but by the rest of us.
Why do you insist on seeing the negative sides of this in isolation? Look at the trade figures for January. Exports to the EU fell by £5.3bn. Imports fell by £8.9bn. The result was that our trade deficit as a whole fell meaning that more of our domestic demand was met by our domestic supply. This boosts growth and domestic employment.
Of course January tells us very little. The figures were enormously distorted by stockpiling in November/December and of course by the lockdown. It will be some time before anything like a clear picture starts to emerge. But when it does my expectation is that EU exports to the UK will fall by more than UK exports to the EU reducing our debilitating trade deficit that we have now run for 20 years a smidgeon. Which will be good for UK growth and UK employment.
Given the distortions of Covid and the relative speed at which the EU and the UK are coming out of lockdown it is likely to be at least a year before the new normal is anything like established. But I remain hopeful it is better than the old normal.
Not to forget we were paying net close to a billion pounds a month (and rising) for the privilege of running such a trade deficit.
Yes trade may be marginally harder with Europe in the future, while trade with the rest of the world may be made easier, but it will also be done without making financial contributions to the continent for the privilege of them exporting to us far more than we did in return.
Personally I remain of the view that the EU trading advantage with us was so significant that they will look over time to restore trade to what it was as much as possible. Whether that is actually in our interests is something that we need to give some serious thought to.
Currently EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks. It is our exports to them which are being hampered by our own government. This would seem to be the complete opposite of what you want.
That's quite rightly a teething problem.
When the UK is ready to do checks we can do whatever checks suit us best. Unless or until we determine we're in a position to do those checks, there's no point cutting off our own nose to spite our face.
Small businesses have reported a marked drop in exports to the EU as another company bemoaned the post-Brexit “nightmare” of delivery delays and increased costs.
The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), a lobby group, said 35 of the 132 exporters it surveyed had temporarily suspended trade with the EU or stopped it permanently. One in 10 of the exporters surveyed said they were also considering giving up trade with EU customers.
Some smaller business have been badly affected by the overnight change in trade rules on 31 December, with new paperwork and a rush to secure delivery space causing widespread delays and extra costs. UK exports to the EU fell by 41% in January, according to government figures.
There was another report I read over the weekend of a Cheese company who had been vocal enough expressing his frustration on Twitter to get a government minister to ring him. The government said nothing would change to make export to the EU viable again, but had he considered the huge opportunities exporting to places like Canada?
The Tories - formerly the party of business - don't understand how business works. "Can't just just trade with x" is a stupid question. If trade with x was preferable or more profitable or even viable compared to trade with the EU they would already be doing so. Just because the Tories have torpedoed these company's ability to have an export trade with their biggest market doesn't miraculously remove the massive barriers to trade with the rest of the world.
It’s all ME! ME! ME! isn’t it though?
The electorate decided they wanted a different relationship with the EU. It would be great if we could continue to trade with the EU on historical terms while in this new relationship structure.
But if the EU doesn’t want to - as is their right - and the UK doesn’t want to - as is their right - then what the government minister said is absolutely right.
Why should the convenience of their blessed cheese maker be more significant than the wishes of the electorate as a whole?
You're rather missing the point. One of the premises of Brexit was that not only would trade with the EU continue but that new markets would open up. So far we have not had new markets opened up. Rather there have been roll over trade agreements ie the same agreements as we had before.
What is being pointed out is that the opposite appears to be happening. Our ability to export to the EU is being significantly harmed (so the trade deficit in goods so bewailed as a bad consequence of the Single Market by some on here will likely widen) but alternative new - and profitable - markets are simply not there. If it was possible to trade profitably with Canada before don't you think this cheese maker and others would have done it?
The government has wrongly tried to claim these are teething problems. They are not. They are the very deliberate choice made by this government and the government then lied about the consequences of that choice. We are now in a position when in a supposedly United Kingdom suppliers are simply refusing to sell goods to part of the same country because it is practically impossible to do so. That market has been lost, EU markets have been lost and, for many suppliers, markets thousands of miles away are simply not practicable or profitable.
And it's not really ME ME ME either. Exports are how we earn our way in the world. If we can't earn how do we live? The consequences of making it impossible for this cheesemaker and many others like him to export will be borne not just by him but by the rest of us.
Why do you insist on seeing the negative sides of this in isolation? Look at the trade figures for January. Exports to the EU fell by £5.3bn. Imports fell by £8.9bn. The result was that our trade deficit as a whole fell meaning that more of our domestic demand was met by our domestic supply. This boosts growth and domestic employment.
Of course January tells us very little. The figures were enormously distorted by stockpiling in November/December and of course by the lockdown. It will be some time before anything like a clear picture starts to emerge. But when it does my expectation is that EU exports to the UK will fall by more than UK exports to the EU reducing our debilitating trade deficit that we have now run for 20 years a smidgeon. Which will be good for UK growth and UK employment.
Given the distortions of Covid and the relative speed at which the EU and the UK are coming out of lockdown it is likely to be at least a year before the new normal is anything like established. But I remain hopeful it is better than the old normal.
Imports falling doesn't necessarily mean demand was met by domestic supply (with the consequent boost for producers here). It might just mean that demand fell (due to pre-January stockpiling, delays in imports, delays in purchases, the UK being broke post-Brexit - you can delete some of those according to personal preferences!).
I agree that January tells us very little from looking at overall figures. There was stockpiling before. There were some one-off problems in the new regime (and some long term problems). There was also a big wave of Covid and everyone stuck at home with more uncertainty. We all, on both sides, need to wait a bit to assess the effects (we can point to genuine problems/successes, but based just on one, unusual, month on trade figures).
(A particular bugbear of mine is those comparing January 2021 with January 2020, ignoring the small issue of a global pandemic having some impact on economies in the meantime)
Oh I agree. January tells us nothing, February will tell us next to nothing, March will not be much better and there may be new distortions in April when we are open for business again and the continent largely isn't.
My complaint is the default liberal assumption that all trade is good and that free trade is best. That is not necessarily so from the perspective of a single country. At roughly £100k a job our trade deficit in goods with the EU was costing us the equivalent of about 970k jobs in this country. That was offset to a modest extent (roughly £18bn) by a surplus in services but the net effect on employment was severely negative as were the long term wealth effects of such a deficit.
Now of course we do not want to stop trading with the EU. We do not want the disruption that would cause to our economy. But we do need to rebalance that trade to a somewhat healthier situation and if that means that exports fall but not as fast as imports that may well prove to be a very good thing.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
Two completely unrelated points.
*When the Danish newspaper published its offensive cartoons, way back when, often included with the actual cartoons was a photoshopped image of a ... checks notes ... French pig-squealing contestant.
I forget, was it in Myanmar that the entirely mythical squadron of mint, crated Spitfires was waiting to be dug up a few years ago? The Telegraph almost wanked itself to death over that one.
Is that a flipping Comet? The Tank Museum would probably make them a nice offer for it!
Small businesses have reported a marked drop in exports to the EU as another company bemoaned the post-Brexit “nightmare” of delivery delays and increased costs.
The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), a lobby group, said 35 of the 132 exporters it surveyed had temporarily suspended trade with the EU or stopped it permanently. One in 10 of the exporters surveyed said they were also considering giving up trade with EU customers.
Some smaller business have been badly affected by the overnight change in trade rules on 31 December, with new paperwork and a rush to secure delivery space causing widespread delays and extra costs. UK exports to the EU fell by 41% in January, according to government figures.
There was another report I read over the weekend of a Cheese company who had been vocal enough expressing his frustration on Twitter to get a government minister to ring him. The government said nothing would change to make export to the EU viable again, but had he considered the huge opportunities exporting to places like Canada?
The Tories - formerly the party of business - don't understand how business works. "Can't just just trade with x" is a stupid question. If trade with x was preferable or more profitable or even viable compared to trade with the EU they would already be doing so. Just because the Tories have torpedoed these company's ability to have an export trade with their biggest market doesn't miraculously remove the massive barriers to trade with the rest of the world.
It’s all ME! ME! ME! isn’t it though?
The electorate decided they wanted a different relationship with the EU. It would be great if we could continue to trade with the EU on historical terms while in this new relationship structure.
But if the EU doesn’t want to - as is their right - and the UK doesn’t want to - as is their right - then what the government minister said is absolutely right.
Why should the convenience of their blessed cheese maker be more significant than the wishes of the electorate as a whole?
You're rather missing the point. One of the premises of Brexit was that not only would trade with the EU continue but that new markets would open up. So far we have not had new markets opened up. Rather there have been roll over trade agreements ie the same agreements as we had before.
What is being pointed out is that the opposite appears to be happening. Our ability to export to the EU is being significantly harmed (so the trade deficit in goods so bewailed as a bad consequence of the Single Market by some on here will likely widen) but alternative new - and profitable - markets are simply not there. If it was possible to trade profitably with Canada before don't you think this cheese maker and others would have done it?
The government has wrongly tried to claim these are teething problems. They are not. They are the very deliberate choice made by this government and the government then lied about the consequences of that choice. We are now in a position when in a supposedly United Kingdom suppliers are simply refusing to sell goods to part of the same country because it is practically impossible to do so. That market has been lost, EU markets have been lost and, for many suppliers, markets thousands of miles away are simply not practicable or profitable.
And it's not really ME ME ME either. Exports are how we earn our way in the world. If we can't earn how do we live? The consequences of making it impossible for this cheesemaker and many others like him to export will be borne not just by him but by the rest of us.
Why do you insist on seeing the negative sides of this in isolation? Look at the trade figures for January. Exports to the EU fell by £5.3bn. Imports fell by £8.9bn. The result was that our trade deficit as a whole fell meaning that more of our domestic demand was met by our domestic supply. This boosts growth and domestic employment.
Of course January tells us very little. The figures were enormously distorted by stockpiling in November/December and of course by the lockdown. It will be some time before anything like a clear picture starts to emerge. But when it does my expectation is that EU exports to the UK will fall by more than UK exports to the EU reducing our debilitating trade deficit that we have now run for 20 years a smidgeon. Which will be good for UK growth and UK employment.
Given the distortions of Covid and the relative speed at which the EU and the UK are coming out of lockdown it is likely to be at least a year before the new normal is anything like established. But I remain hopeful it is better than the old normal.
Not to forget we were paying net close to a billion pounds a month (and rising) for the privilege of running such a trade deficit.
Yes trade may be marginally harder with Europe in the future, while trade with the rest of the world may be made easier, but it will also be done without making financial contributions to the continent for the privilege of them exporting to us far more than we did in return.
I must admit I was scratching my head about the angst over January's trade numbers, which actually showed a marked improvement in the balance of trade.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
This is not about free speech "extremists" - and what a weaselly phrase that is - a thoroughly dishonest attempt to put those who want to extend freedom and critical thinking on a par with those who want to limit it and close it down.
It's about saying that I - a non-Muslim - should not be expected to pay any regard whatever to the precepts of Islam. It is simply of no interest to me what the rules are on depictions of Mohammed or indeed anything else about him. If I want to draw him or refer to him I can do so in whatever way I choose. There is absolutely nothing special about him as far as any non-Muslim is concerned.
Whereas what is being attempted is to try and make him special to non- Muslims by making us pay regard to Islamic strictures about him. On the entirely spurious grounds of offence or hurt. Spurious - not because the hurt isn't real, it may be, though quite a lot seems confected - but because someone's personal hurt is an utterly irrelevant consideration.
Can I require Muslims to start saying the Our Father and going to confession because I am hurt that they don't recognise Catholicism as the One True Faith? No of course not. It is an utterly silly idea. And it is just as silly when Muslims demand that we pay attention to the tenets of their faith.
Which is fair enough. But is it fair for someone in a position of authority to subject their charges to such offence ? There's a difference between a teacher's choices, and the rules of open exchange in wider society, and the line drawn is not the same at all. Pupils, after all, legally have no choice over whether or not to be in school.
Yes it is fair.
Having your views challenged should be part of an education.
Understanding that views can be challenged should be part of an education.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
This is not about free speech "extremists" - and what a weaselly phrase that is - a thoroughly dishonest attempt to put those who want to extend freedom and critical thinking on a par with those who want to limit it and close it down.
It's about saying that I - a non-Muslim - should not be expected to pay any regard whatever to the precepts of Islam. It is simply of no interest to me what the rules are on depictions of Mohammed or indeed anything else about him. If I want to draw him or refer to him I can do so in whatever way I choose. There is absolutely nothing special about him as far as any non-Muslim is concerned.
Whereas what is being attempted is to try and make him special to non- Muslims by making us pay regard to Islamic strictures about him. On the entirely spurious grounds of offence or hurt. Spurious - not because the hurt isn't real, it may be, though quite a lot seems confected - but because someone's personal hurt is an utterly irrelevant consideration.
Can I require Muslims to start saying the Our Father and going to confession because I am hurt that they don't recognise Catholicism as the One True Faith? No of course not. It is an utterly silly idea. And it is just as silly when Muslims demand that we pay attention to the tenets of their faith.
Which is fair enough. But is it fair for someone in a position of authority to subject their charges to such offence ? There's a difference between a teacher's choices, and the rules of open exchange in wider society, and the line drawn is not the same at all. Pupils, after all, legally have no choice over whether or not to be in school.
Yes - because critical thinking is exactly what pupils need to be taught. And is that critical thinking - about their faith and what their parents have taught them - which is exactly what these community leaders don't want because it threatens their power.
As I put it - "they object to their views being challenged by other facts and viewpoints being presented.
This is a curious view to take of education whose essence, surely, is to teach children what they cannot learn at home, to introduce them to a world of ideas and knowledge far beyond the confines of family."
Or Matthew Syed: " They are worried that their children might decide that Islam isn’t for them, that it is a not as inviolable as their elders imply, and may even question its more “extremist” interpretations: the burqa, the misogyny, the homophobia. And perhaps they will experience this not as bullying, but as blessed liberation.
I think of my second cousin, who spent years in turmoil about his homosexuality, unable to reconcile it with his community’s interpretation of the Quran. Only when he started to question what he had been told was absolute truth, only when he was encouraged to think critically, was he released from these invisible bonds, if not quite yet the feelings of guilt. How many millions are in such a position, and how many will remain if educational facilities are scared to challenge the prevailing dogmas?"
That is exactly why these matters must be taught and discussed in schools not left until later - or never, in reality.
Small businesses have reported a marked drop in exports to the EU as another company bemoaned the post-Brexit “nightmare” of delivery delays and increased costs.
The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), a lobby group, said 35 of the 132 exporters it surveyed had temporarily suspended trade with the EU or stopped it permanently. One in 10 of the exporters surveyed said they were also considering giving up trade with EU customers.
Some smaller business have been badly affected by the overnight change in trade rules on 31 December, with new paperwork and a rush to secure delivery space causing widespread delays and extra costs. UK exports to the EU fell by 41% in January, according to government figures.
There was another report I read over the weekend of a Cheese company who had been vocal enough expressing his frustration on Twitter to get a government minister to ring him. The government said nothing would change to make export to the EU viable again, but had he considered the huge opportunities exporting to places like Canada?
The Tories - formerly the party of business - don't understand how business works. "Can't just just trade with x" is a stupid question. If trade with x was preferable or more profitable or even viable compared to trade with the EU they would already be doing so. Just because the Tories have torpedoed these company's ability to have an export trade with their biggest market doesn't miraculously remove the massive barriers to trade with the rest of the world.
It’s all ME! ME! ME! isn’t it though?
The electorate decided they wanted a different relationship with the EU. It would be great if we could continue to trade with the EU on historical terms while in this new relationship structure.
But if the EU doesn’t want to - as is their right - and the UK doesn’t want to - as is their right - then what the government minister said is absolutely right.
Why should the convenience of their blessed cheese maker be more significant than the wishes of the electorate as a whole?
You're rather missing the point. One of the premises of Brexit was that not only would trade with the EU continue but that new markets would open up. So far we have not had new markets opened up. Rather there have been roll over trade agreements ie the same agreements as we had before.
What is being pointed out is that the opposite appears to be happening. Our ability to export to the EU is being significantly harmed (so the trade deficit in goods so bewailed as a bad consequence of the Single Market by some on here will likely widen) but alternative new - and profitable - markets are simply not there. If it was possible to trade profitably with Canada before don't you think this cheese maker and others would have done it?
The government has wrongly tried to claim these are teething problems. They are not. They are the very deliberate choice made by this government and the government then lied about the consequences of that choice. We are now in a position when in a supposedly United Kingdom suppliers are simply refusing to sell goods to part of the same country because it is practically impossible to do so. That market has been lost, EU markets have been lost and, for many suppliers, markets thousands of miles away are simply not practicable or profitable.
And it's not really ME ME ME either. Exports are how we earn our way in the world. If we can't earn how do we live? The consequences of making it impossible for this cheesemaker and many others like him to export will be borne not just by him but by the rest of us.
Why do you insist on seeing the negative sides of this in isolation? Look at the trade figures for January. Exports to the EU fell by £5.3bn. Imports fell by £8.9bn. The result was that our trade deficit as a whole fell meaning that more of our domestic demand was met by our domestic supply. This boosts growth and domestic employment.
Of course January tells us very little. The figures were enormously distorted by stockpiling in November/December and of course by the lockdown. It will be some time before anything like a clear picture starts to emerge. But when it does my expectation is that EU exports to the UK will fall by more than UK exports to the EU reducing our debilitating trade deficit that we have now run for 20 years a smidgeon. Which will be good for UK growth and UK employment.
Given the distortions of Covid and the relative speed at which the EU and the UK are coming out of lockdown it is likely to be at least a year before the new normal is anything like established. But I remain hopeful it is better than the old normal.
Imports falling doesn't necessarily mean demand was met by domestic supply (with the consequent boost for producers here). It might just mean that demand fell (due to pre-January stockpiling, delays in imports, delays in purchases, the UK being broke post-Brexit - you can delete some of those according to personal preferences!).
I agree that January tells us very little from looking at overall figures. There was stockpiling before. There were some one-off problems in the new regime (and some long term problems). There was also a big wave of Covid and everyone stuck at home with more uncertainty. We all, on both sides, need to wait a bit to assess the effects (we can point to genuine problems/successes, but based just on one, unusual, month on trade figures).
(A particular bugbear of mine is those comparing January 2021 with January 2020, ignoring the small issue of a global pandemic having some impact on economies in the meantime)
More generally, you can't really tell anything about economic trends from one month's, or even one quarter's figures. I once worked with a well-respected economist who said (semi-seriously) that if he had his way, only annual statistics would be published.
Of course traders, who love volatility, would cry bloody murder, so it'll never happen.
Small businesses have reported a marked drop in exports to the EU as another company bemoaned the post-Brexit “nightmare” of delivery delays and increased costs.
The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), a lobby group, said 35 of the 132 exporters it surveyed had temporarily suspended trade with the EU or stopped it permanently. One in 10 of the exporters surveyed said they were also considering giving up trade with EU customers.
Some smaller business have been badly affected by the overnight change in trade rules on 31 December, with new paperwork and a rush to secure delivery space causing widespread delays and extra costs. UK exports to the EU fell by 41% in January, according to government figures.
There was another report I read over the weekend of a Cheese company who had been vocal enough expressing his frustration on Twitter to get a government minister to ring him. The government said nothing would change to make export to the EU viable again, but had he considered the huge opportunities exporting to places like Canada?
The Tories - formerly the party of business - don't understand how business works. "Can't just just trade with x" is a stupid question. If trade with x was preferable or more profitable or even viable compared to trade with the EU they would already be doing so. Just because the Tories have torpedoed these company's ability to have an export trade with their biggest market doesn't miraculously remove the massive barriers to trade with the rest of the world.
It’s all ME! ME! ME! isn’t it though?
The electorate decided they wanted a different relationship with the EU. It would be great if we could continue to trade with the EU on historical terms while in this new relationship structure.
But if the EU doesn’t want to - as is their right - and the UK doesn’t want to - as is their right - then what the government minister said is absolutely right.
Why should the convenience of their blessed cheese maker be more significant than the wishes of the electorate as a whole?
You're rather missing the point. One of the premises of Brexit was that not only would trade with the EU continue but that new markets would open up. So far we have not had new markets opened up. Rather there have been roll over trade agreements ie the same agreements as we had before.
What is being pointed out is that the opposite appears to be happening. Our ability to export to the EU is being significantly harmed (so the trade deficit in goods so bewailed as a bad consequence of the Single Market by some on here will likely widen) but alternative new - and profitable - markets are simply not there. If it was possible to trade profitably with Canada before don't you think this cheese maker and others would have done it?
The government has wrongly tried to claim these are teething problems. They are not. They are the very deliberate choice made by this government and the government then lied about the consequences of that choice. We are now in a position when in a supposedly United Kingdom suppliers are simply refusing to sell goods to part of the same country because it is practically impossible to do so. That market has been lost, EU markets have been lost and, for many suppliers, markets thousands of miles away are simply not practicable or profitable.
And it's not really ME ME ME either. Exports are how we earn our way in the world. If we can't earn how do we live? The consequences of making it impossible for this cheesemaker and many others like him to export will be borne not just by him but by the rest of us.
Why do you insist on seeing the negative sides of this in isolation? Look at the trade figures for January. Exports to the EU fell by £5.3bn. Imports fell by £8.9bn. The result was that our trade deficit as a whole fell meaning that more of our domestic demand was met by our domestic supply. This boosts growth and domestic employment.
Of course January tells us very little. The figures were enormously distorted by stockpiling in November/December and of course by the lockdown. It will be some time before anything like a clear picture starts to emerge. But when it does my expectation is that EU exports to the UK will fall by more than UK exports to the EU reducing our debilitating trade deficit that we have now run for 20 years a smidgeon. Which will be good for UK growth and UK employment.
Given the distortions of Covid and the relative speed at which the EU and the UK are coming out of lockdown it is likely to be at least a year before the new normal is anything like established. But I remain hopeful it is better than the old normal.
Not to forget we were paying net close to a billion pounds a month (and rising) for the privilege of running such a trade deficit.
Yes trade may be marginally harder with Europe in the future, while trade with the rest of the world may be made easier, but it will also be done without making financial contributions to the continent for the privilege of them exporting to us far more than we did in return.
Personally I remain of the view that the EU trading advantage with us was so significant that they will look over time to restore trade to what it was as much as possible. Whether that is actually in our interests is something that we need to give some serious thought to.
Currently EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks. It is our exports to them which are being hampered by our own government. This would seem to be the complete opposite of what you want.
Yes it is. We have been wrong to simply wave imports through and should stop doing so. And yet the (highly distorted) numbers still show a reduced deficit.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
You are describing politeness and good manners. But what you ignore is that these cannot be demanded by means of threats. If I am polite it is by my choice not because I fear being attacked if I am not...
Rather stricter requirements than you impose on yourself are mandated for teachers in their professional standards, though. ...Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by: treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs ensuring that personal beliefs are not expressed in ways which exploit pupils’ vulnerability or might lead them to break the law...
Of course none of this in any way justifies violent protest, but I think you are conflating two issues here in a way which does not justify the teacher's original decisions.
(Of course there is a separate issue of whether the cartoon was included in the curriculum materials for the school, which I don't know.)
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
Small businesses have reported a marked drop in exports to the EU as another company bemoaned the post-Brexit “nightmare” of delivery delays and increased costs.
The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), a lobby group, said 35 of the 132 exporters it surveyed had temporarily suspended trade with the EU or stopped it permanently. One in 10 of the exporters surveyed said they were also considering giving up trade with EU customers.
Some smaller business have been badly affected by the overnight change in trade rules on 31 December, with new paperwork and a rush to secure delivery space causing widespread delays and extra costs. UK exports to the EU fell by 41% in January, according to government figures.
There was another report I read over the weekend of a Cheese company who had been vocal enough expressing his frustration on Twitter to get a government minister to ring him. The government said nothing would change to make export to the EU viable again, but had he considered the huge opportunities exporting to places like Canada?
The Tories - formerly the party of business - don't understand how business works. "Can't just just trade with x" is a stupid question. If trade with x was preferable or more profitable or even viable compared to trade with the EU they would already be doing so. Just because the Tories have torpedoed these company's ability to have an export trade with their biggest market doesn't miraculously remove the massive barriers to trade with the rest of the world.
It’s all ME! ME! ME! isn’t it though?
The electorate decided they wanted a different relationship with the EU. It would be great if we could continue to trade with the EU on historical terms while in this new relationship structure.
But if the EU doesn’t want to - as is their right - and the UK doesn’t want to - as is their right - then what the government minister said is absolutely right.
Why should the convenience of their blessed cheese maker be more significant than the wishes of the electorate as a whole?
You're rather missing the point. One of the premises of Brexit was that not only would trade with the EU continue but that new markets would open up. So far we have not had new markets opened up. Rather there have been roll over trade agreements ie the same agreements as we had before.
What is being pointed out is that the opposite appears to be happening. Our ability to export to the EU is being significantly harmed (so the trade deficit in goods so bewailed as a bad consequence of the Single Market by some on here will likely widen) but alternative new - and profitable - markets are simply not there. If it was possible to trade profitably with Canada before don't you think this cheese maker and others would have done it?
The government has wrongly tried to claim these are teething problems. They are not. They are the very deliberate choice made by this government and the government then lied about the consequences of that choice. We are now in a position when in a supposedly United Kingdom suppliers are simply refusing to sell goods to part of the same country because it is practically impossible to do so. That market has been lost, EU markets have been lost and, for many suppliers, markets thousands of miles away are simply not practicable or profitable.
And it's not really ME ME ME either. Exports are how we earn our way in the world. If we can't earn how do we live? The consequences of making it impossible for this cheesemaker and many others like him to export will be borne not just by him but by the rest of us.
Why do you insist on seeing the negative sides of this in isolation? Look at the trade figures for January. Exports to the EU fell by £5.3bn. Imports fell by £8.9bn. The result was that our trade deficit as a whole fell meaning that more of our domestic demand was met by our domestic supply. This boosts growth and domestic employment.
Of course January tells us very little. The figures were enormously distorted by stockpiling in November/December and of course by the lockdown. It will be some time before anything like a clear picture starts to emerge. But when it does my expectation is that EU exports to the UK will fall by more than UK exports to the EU reducing our debilitating trade deficit that we have now run for 20 years a smidgeon. Which will be good for UK growth and UK employment.
Given the distortions of Covid and the relative speed at which the EU and the UK are coming out of lockdown it is likely to be at least a year before the new normal is anything like established. But I remain hopeful it is better than the old normal.
Not to forget we were paying net close to a billion pounds a month (and rising) for the privilege of running such a trade deficit.
Yes trade may be marginally harder with Europe in the future, while trade with the rest of the world may be made easier, but it will also be done without making financial contributions to the continent for the privilege of them exporting to us far more than we did in return.
Personally I remain of the view that the EU trading advantage with us was so significant that they will look over time to restore trade to what it was as much as possible. Whether that is actually in our interests is something that we need to give some serious thought to.
Currently EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks. It is our exports to them which are being hampered by our own government. This would seem to be the complete opposite of what you want.
Yes it is. We have been wrong to simply wave imports through and should stop doing so. And yet the (highly distorted) numbers still show a reduced deficit.
I normally agree with you on these matters but I have to disagree here.
We're simply not prepared for doing all the checks that are needed. That's largely because of Hammond wasting three years when he should have spent that time preparing for the checks, afterall what we've agreed is pretty much as good a free trade deal as we could get under the red lines that he was supposed to be working towards. But the problem is he opposed the red lines and wanted to undermine them and not preparing for Brexit was a part of that.
Long-term the checks are needed unless we agree a deal with the EU that they aren't (which may not be in our interests). In the short term waiving them until we are ready to do it without extra disruption may be in our self-interest.
We should do whatever is in our own self-interest.
All is good in the world - or at least getting slowly better.
I think lockdown is finally even getting to me - the ultimate antisocial misanthrope.
So far this month I've ordered a Harley Davidson Pan America in anticipation of some hypothetical trip to the Pyrenees, a CNC plasma cutter and nearly four grand's worth of OEM E36 bolts and other parts from BMW. I DON'T OWN AN E36. It might be time to go somewhere else.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
Because he's a small minded intolerant illiberal bigot who doesn't like his views being challenged.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
This is not about free speech "extremists" - and what a weaselly phrase that is - a thoroughly dishonest attempt to put those who want to extend freedom and critical thinking on a par with those who want to limit it and close it down.
It's about saying that I - a non-Muslim - should not be expected to pay any regard whatever to the precepts of Islam. It is simply of no interest to me what the rules are on depictions of Mohammed or indeed anything else about him. If I want to draw him or refer to him I can do so in whatever way I choose. There is absolutely nothing special about him as far as any non-Muslim is concerned.
Whereas what is being attempted is to try and make him special to non- Muslims by making us pay regard to Islamic strictures about him. On the entirely spurious grounds of offence or hurt. Spurious - not because the hurt isn't real, it may be, though quite a lot seems confected - but because someone's personal hurt is an utterly irrelevant consideration.
Can I require Muslims to start saying the Our Father and going to confession because I am hurt that they don't recognise Catholicism as the One True Faith? No of course not. It is an utterly silly idea. And it is just as silly when Muslims demand that we pay attention to the tenets of their faith.
Which is fair enough. But is it fair for someone in a position of authority to subject their charges to such offence ? There's a difference between a teacher's choices, and the rules of open exchange in wider society, and the line drawn is not the same at all. Pupils, after all, legally have no choice over whether or not to be in school.
Yes - because critical thinking is exactly what pupils need to be taught. And is that critical thinking - about their faith and what their parents have taught them - which is exactly what these community leaders don't want because it threatens their power.
As I put it - "they object to their views being challenged by other facts and viewpoints being presented.
This is a curious view to take of education whose essence, surely, is to teach children what they cannot learn at home, to introduce them to a world of ideas and knowledge far beyond the confines of family."
Or Matthew Syed: " They are worried that their children might decide that Islam isn’t for them, that it is a not as inviolable as their elders imply, and may even question its more “extremist” interpretations: the burqa, the misogyny, the homophobia. And perhaps they will experience this not as bullying, but as blessed liberation.
I think of my second cousin, who spent years in turmoil about his homosexuality, unable to reconcile it with his community’s interpretation of the Quran. Only when he started to question what he had been told was absolute truth, only when he was encouraged to think critically, was he released from these invisible bonds, if not quite yet the feelings of guilt. How many millions are in such a position, and how many will remain if educational facilities are scared to challenge the prevailing dogmas?"
That is exactly why these matters must be taught and discussed in schools not left until later - or never, in reality.
I agree with all of that. But I don't think that is what we're talking about here.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
You are describing politeness and good manners. But what you ignore is that these cannot be demanded by means of threats. If I am polite it is by my choice not because I fear being attacked if I am not...
Rather stricter requirements than you impose on yourself are mandated for teachers in their professional standards, though. ...Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by: treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs ensuring that personal beliefs are not expressed in ways which exploit pupils’ vulnerability or might lead them to break the law...
Of course none of this in any way justifies violent protest, but I think you are conflating two issues here in a way which does not justify the teacher's original decisions.
(Of course there is a separate issue of whether the cartoon was included in the curriculum materials for the school, which I don't know.)
None of that means what the teacher did was wrong. Indeed putting what the teacher did into the national curriculum as I would support would still be consistent with all of that.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
You are describing politeness and good manners. But what you ignore is that these cannot be demanded by means of threats. If I am polite it is by my choice not because I fear being attacked if I am not...
Rather stricter requirements than you impose on yourself are mandated for teachers in their professional standards, though. ...Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by: treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs ensuring that personal beliefs are not expressed in ways which exploit pupils’ vulnerability or might lead them to break the law...
Of course none of this in any way justifies violent protest, but I think you are conflating two issues here in a way which does not justify the teacher's original decisions.
(Of course there is a separate issue of whether the cartoon was included in the curriculum materials for the school, which I don't know.)
None of that as I read it stops a teacher teaching about blasphemy. Nor does it stop teaching about homosexuality - the target of the last protests. And yet the protests always seem to come from Islamic community leaders who, however, they dress it up, want to stop their children knowing about the world beyond the strict confines of Islamic belief, as interpreted and taught by those self-same leaders.
That is not education and we do children a complete disservice by pretending that it is or by denying them the right to a proper education, chief among which are the tools to challenge what their parents tell them.
Small businesses have reported a marked drop in exports to the EU as another company bemoaned the post-Brexit “nightmare” of delivery delays and increased costs.
The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), a lobby group, said 35 of the 132 exporters it surveyed had temporarily suspended trade with the EU or stopped it permanently. One in 10 of the exporters surveyed said they were also considering giving up trade with EU customers.
Some smaller business have been badly affected by the overnight change in trade rules on 31 December, with new paperwork and a rush to secure delivery space causing widespread delays and extra costs. UK exports to the EU fell by 41% in January, according to government figures.
There was another report I read over the weekend of a Cheese company who had been vocal enough expressing his frustration on Twitter to get a government minister to ring him. The government said nothing would change to make export to the EU viable again, but had he considered the huge opportunities exporting to places like Canada?
The Tories - formerly the party of business - don't understand how business works. "Can't just just trade with x" is a stupid question. If trade with x was preferable or more profitable or even viable compared to trade with the EU they would already be doing so. Just because the Tories have torpedoed these company's ability to have an export trade with their biggest market doesn't miraculously remove the massive barriers to trade with the rest of the world.
It’s all ME! ME! ME! isn’t it though?
The electorate decided they wanted a different relationship with the EU. It would be great if we could continue to trade with the EU on historical terms while in this new relationship structure.
But if the EU doesn’t want to - as is their right - and the UK doesn’t want to - as is their right - then what the government minister said is absolutely right.
Why should the convenience of their blessed cheese maker be more significant than the wishes of the electorate as a whole?
You're rather missing the point. One of the premises of Brexit was that not only would trade with the EU continue but that new markets would open up. So far we have not had new markets opened up. Rather there have been roll over trade agreements ie the same agreements as we had before.
What is being pointed out is that the opposite appears to be happening. Our ability to export to the EU is being significantly harmed (so the trade deficit in goods so bewailed as a bad consequence of the Single Market by some on here will likely widen) but alternative new - and profitable - markets are simply not there. If it was possible to trade profitably with Canada before don't you think this cheese maker and others would have done it?
The government has wrongly tried to claim these are teething problems. They are not. They are the very deliberate choice made by this government and the government then lied about the consequences of that choice. We are now in a position when in a supposedly United Kingdom suppliers are simply refusing to sell goods to part of the same country because it is practically impossible to do so. That market has been lost, EU markets have been lost and, for many suppliers, markets thousands of miles away are simply not practicable or profitable.
And it's not really ME ME ME either. Exports are how we earn our way in the world. If we can't earn how do we live? The consequences of making it impossible for this cheesemaker and many others like him to export will be borne not just by him but by the rest of us.
Why do you insist on seeing the negative sides of this in isolation? Look at the trade figures for January. Exports to the EU fell by £5.3bn. Imports fell by £8.9bn. The result was that our trade deficit as a whole fell meaning that more of our domestic demand was met by our domestic supply. This boosts growth and domestic employment.
Of course January tells us very little. The figures were enormously distorted by stockpiling in November/December and of course by the lockdown. It will be some time before anything like a clear picture starts to emerge. But when it does my expectation is that EU exports to the UK will fall by more than UK exports to the EU reducing our debilitating trade deficit that we have now run for 20 years a smidgeon. Which will be good for UK growth and UK employment.
Given the distortions of Covid and the relative speed at which the EU and the UK are coming out of lockdown it is likely to be at least a year before the new normal is anything like established. But I remain hopeful it is better than the old normal.
Not to forget we were paying net close to a billion pounds a month (and rising) for the privilege of running such a trade deficit.
Yes trade may be marginally harder with Europe in the future, while trade with the rest of the world may be made easier, but it will also be done without making financial contributions to the continent for the privilege of them exporting to us far more than we did in return.
Personally I remain of the view that the EU trading advantage with us was so significant that they will look over time to restore trade to what it was as much as possible. Whether that is actually in our interests is something that we need to give some serious thought to.
Currently EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks. It is our exports to them which are being hampered by our own government. This would seem to be the complete opposite of what you want.
Yes it is. We have been wrong to simply wave imports through and should stop doing so. And yet the (highly distorted) numbers still show a reduced deficit.
I normally agree with you on these matters but I have to disagree here.
We're simply not prepared for doing all the checks that are needed. That's largely because of Hammond wasting three years when he should have spent that time preparing for the checks, afterall what we've agreed is pretty much as good a free trade deal as we could get under the red lines that he was supposed to be working towards. But the problem is he opposed the red lines and wanted to undermine them and not preparing for Brexit was a part of that.
Long-term the checks are needed unless we agree a deal with the EU that they aren't (which may not be in our interests). In the short term waiving them until we are ready to do it without extra disruption may be in our self-interest.
We should do whatever is in our own self-interest.
We are not in disagreement Philip. Our own self interest is the ruling principle here. It is unfortunate that the rank incompetence and basic dishonesty of May and Hammond meant we were not ready to protect our interests even at the end of an extended transitional period but we are where we are and we should be building that inspection capacity now making it very clear that it will come into force within months.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
You are describing politeness and good manners. But what you ignore is that these cannot be demanded by means of threats. If I am polite it is by my choice not because I fear being attacked if I am not...
Rather stricter requirements than you impose on yourself are mandated for teachers in their professional standards, though. ...Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by: treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs ensuring that personal beliefs are not expressed in ways which exploit pupils’ vulnerability or might lead them to break the law...
Of course none of this in any way justifies violent protest, but I think you are conflating two issues here in a way which does not justify the teacher's original decisions.
(Of course there is a separate issue of whether the cartoon was included in the curriculum materials for the school, which I don't know.)
None of that as I read it stops a teacher teaching about blasphemy. Nor does it stop teaching about homosexuality - the target of the last protests. And yet the protests always seem to come from Islamic community leaders who, however, they dress it up, want to stop their children knowing about the world beyond the strict confines of Islamic belief, as interpreted and taught by those self-same leaders.
That is not education and we do children a complete disservice by pretending that it is or by denying them the right to a proper education, chief among which are the tools to challenge what their parents tell them.
I wasn't arguing for a moment that it did. Was it necessary to show a cartoon know to be highly offensive to some to do that ?
Again, you are presenting condemnation of the unacceptable behaviour of protestors as justification of the teacher's actions. Both things can be wrong.
Small businesses have reported a marked drop in exports to the EU as another company bemoaned the post-Brexit “nightmare” of delivery delays and increased costs.
The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), a lobby group, said 35 of the 132 exporters it surveyed had temporarily suspended trade with the EU or stopped it permanently. One in 10 of the exporters surveyed said they were also considering giving up trade with EU customers.
Some smaller business have been badly affected by the overnight change in trade rules on 31 December, with new paperwork and a rush to secure delivery space causing widespread delays and extra costs. UK exports to the EU fell by 41% in January, according to government figures.
There was another report I read over the weekend of a Cheese company who had been vocal enough expressing his frustration on Twitter to get a government minister to ring him. The government said nothing would change to make export to the EU viable again, but had he considered the huge opportunities exporting to places like Canada?
The Tories - formerly the party of business - don't understand how business works. "Can't just just trade with x" is a stupid question. If trade with x was preferable or more profitable or even viable compared to trade with the EU they would already be doing so. Just because the Tories have torpedoed these company's ability to have an export trade with their biggest market doesn't miraculously remove the massive barriers to trade with the rest of the world.
It’s all ME! ME! ME! isn’t it though?
The electorate decided they wanted a different relationship with the EU. It would be great if we could continue to trade with the EU on historical terms while in this new relationship structure.
But if the EU doesn’t want to - as is their right - and the UK doesn’t want to - as is their right - then what the government minister said is absolutely right.
Why should the convenience of their blessed cheese maker be more significant than the wishes of the electorate as a whole?
You're rather missing the point. One of the premises of Brexit was that not only would trade with the EU continue but that new markets would open up. So far we have not had new markets opened up. Rather there have been roll over trade agreements ie the same agreements as we had before.
What is being pointed out is that the opposite appears to be happening. Our ability to export to the EU is being significantly harmed (so the trade deficit in goods so bewailed as a bad consequence of the Single Market by some on here will likely widen) but alternative new - and profitable - markets are simply not there. If it was possible to trade profitably with Canada before don't you think this cheese maker and others would have done it?
The government has wrongly tried to claim these are teething problems. They are not. They are the very deliberate choice made by this government and the government then lied about the consequences of that choice. We are now in a position when in a supposedly United Kingdom suppliers are simply refusing to sell goods to part of the same country because it is practically impossible to do so. That market has been lost, EU markets have been lost and, for many suppliers, markets thousands of miles away are simply not practicable or profitable.
And it's not really ME ME ME either. Exports are how we earn our way in the world. If we can't earn how do we live? The consequences of making it impossible for this cheesemaker and many others like him to export will be borne not just by him but by the rest of us.
Why do you insist on seeing the negative sides of this in isolation? Look at the trade figures for January. Exports to the EU fell by £5.3bn. Imports fell by £8.9bn. The result was that our trade deficit as a whole fell meaning that more of our domestic demand was met by our domestic supply. This boosts growth and domestic employment.
Of course January tells us very little. The figures were enormously distorted by stockpiling in November/December and of course by the lockdown. It will be some time before anything like a clear picture starts to emerge. But when it does my expectation is that EU exports to the UK will fall by more than UK exports to the EU reducing our debilitating trade deficit that we have now run for 20 years a smidgeon. Which will be good for UK growth and UK employment.
Given the distortions of Covid and the relative speed at which the EU and the UK are coming out of lockdown it is likely to be at least a year before the new normal is anything like established. But I remain hopeful it is better than the old normal.
Not to forget we were paying net close to a billion pounds a month (and rising) for the privilege of running such a trade deficit.
Yes trade may be marginally harder with Europe in the future, while trade with the rest of the world may be made easier, but it will also be done without making financial contributions to the continent for the privilege of them exporting to us far more than we did in return.
Personally I remain of the view that the EU trading advantage with us was so significant that they will look over time to restore trade to what it was as much as possible. Whether that is actually in our interests is something that we need to give some serious thought to.
Currently EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks. It is our exports to them which are being hampered by our own government. This would seem to be the complete opposite of what you want.
Yes it is. We have been wrong to simply wave imports through and should stop doing so. And yet the (highly distorted) numbers still show a reduced deficit.
I normally agree with you on these matters but I have to disagree here.
We're simply not prepared for doing all the checks that are needed. That's largely because of Hammond wasting three years when he should have spent that time preparing for the checks, afterall what we've agreed is pretty much as good a free trade deal as we could get under the red lines that he was supposed to be working towards. But the problem is he opposed the red lines and wanted to undermine them and not preparing for Brexit was a part of that.
Long-term the checks are needed unless we agree a deal with the EU that they aren't (which may not be in our interests). In the short term waiving them until we are ready to do it without extra disruption may be in our self-interest.
We should do whatever is in our own self-interest.
We are not in disagreement Philip. Our own self interest is the ruling principle here. It is unfortunate that the rank incompetence and basic dishonesty of May and Hammond meant we were not ready to protect our interests even at the end of an extended transitional period but we are where we are and we should be building that inspection capacity now making it very clear that it will come into force within months.
Absolutely agreed. Pretty sure that is what is happening though.
If those checks mean fewer imports, then I can live with that.
Jeezo, if I’d ever known it I’d forgotten that Broony wanted kids to pledge allegiance to the flag.
Quite an interesting overview of how the UJ has been used and marketed by various governments over the years. Not sure if the current iteration of scatter cushions and the image of a stripped off BJ leaping on a blowsy grifter wrapped in the fleg will sweep the nation.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
You are describing politeness and good manners. But what you ignore is that these cannot be demanded by means of threats. If I am polite it is by my choice not because I fear being attacked if I am not...
Rather stricter requirements than you impose on yourself are mandated for teachers in their professional standards, though. ...Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by: treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs ensuring that personal beliefs are not expressed in ways which exploit pupils’ vulnerability or might lead them to break the law...
Of course none of this in any way justifies violent protest, but I think you are conflating two issues here in a way which does not justify the teacher's original decisions.
(Of course there is a separate issue of whether the cartoon was included in the curriculum materials for the school, which I don't know.)
None of that as I read it stops a teacher teaching about blasphemy. Nor does it stop teaching about homosexuality - the target of the last protests. And yet the protests always seem to come from Islamic community leaders who, however, they dress it up, want to stop their children knowing about the world beyond the strict confines of Islamic belief, as interpreted and taught by those self-same leaders.
That is not education and we do children a complete disservice by pretending that it is or by denying them the right to a proper education, chief among which are the tools to challenge what their parents tell them.
I wasn't arguing for a moment that it did. Was it necessary to show a cartoon know to be highly offensive to some to do that ?
Again, you are presenting condemnation of the unacceptable behaviour of protestors as justification of the teacher's actions. Both things can be wrong.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
This is not about free speech "extremists" - and what a weaselly phrase that is - a thoroughly dishonest attempt to put those who want to extend freedom and critical thinking on a par with those who want to limit it and close it down.
It's about saying that I - a non-Muslim - should not be expected to pay any regard whatever to the precepts of Islam. It is simply of no interest to me what the rules are on depictions of Mohammed or indeed anything else about him. If I want to draw him or refer to him I can do so in whatever way I choose. There is absolutely nothing special about him as far as any non-Muslim is concerned.
Whereas what is being attempted is to try and make him special to non- Muslims by making us pay regard to Islamic strictures about him. On the entirely spurious grounds of offence or hurt. Spurious - not because the hurt isn't real, it may be, though quite a lot seems confected - but because someone's personal hurt is an utterly irrelevant consideration.
Can I require Muslims to start saying the Our Father and going to confession because I am hurt that they don't recognise Catholicism as the One True Faith? No of course not. It is an utterly silly idea. And it is just as silly when Muslims demand that we pay attention to the tenets of their faith.
The really silly thing is people try to advance the perhaps reasonable point of 'there's usually no need to be a dick and be pointlessly offence', as if it is in some way related to whether it was 'right' that someone was a dick who was pointlessly offensive. The former is being generally polite, but has no bearing on it being ok for someone to do it, for any reason, nor on whether people who protest are being reasonable.
I really cannot understand why this issue causes some people to equivocate so much. I'm a huge fan of equivocation, but some things actually are black and white. Whether the provoking actions are a good idea or necessary is actually irrelevant (which is the weaksauce diversion seen here), when the reaction is so much more unreasonable. Indeed, every time people seek to walk on eggshells because of the reaction it just makes it easier to defend people who provoke because they are dicks.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
This is not about free speech "extremists" - and what a weaselly phrase that is - a thoroughly dishonest attempt to put those who want to extend freedom and critical thinking on a par with those who want to limit it and close it down.
It's about saying that I - a non-Muslim - should not be expected to pay any regard whatever to the precepts of Islam. It is simply of no interest to me what the rules are on depictions of Mohammed or indeed anything else about him. If I want to draw him or refer to him I can do so in whatever way I choose. There is absolutely nothing special about him as far as any non-Muslim is concerned.
Whereas what is being attempted is to try and make him special to non- Muslims by making us pay regard to Islamic strictures about him. On the entirely spurious grounds of offence or hurt. Spurious - not because the hurt isn't real, it may be, though quite a lot seems confected - but because someone's personal hurt is an utterly irrelevant consideration.
Can I require Muslims to start saying the Our Father and going to confession because I am hurt that they don't recognise Catholicism as the One True Faith? No of course not. It is an utterly silly idea. And it is just as silly when Muslims demand that we pay attention to the tenets of their faith.
In this country - in the democratic world generally - free speech is a core value tempered by certain other things. We don't have free speech. We have free speech under the law. Is the law in this area about right? For me it is. We can debate that. But don't go implying that you believe in free speech and I don't, merely because I postulate a possible analogy between the N word and the Hebdo cartoons, and suggest we should have a consensus default in practice of "avoid".
I'm not arguing for banning anything. I believe in free speech under the law. Just like you do. Just like most people do who say they support free speech. But there are exceptions. There are people who elevate totally untrammeled free speech above all else, and these people absolutely are "free speech extremists". There's nothing weaselly at all about that phrase. It's accurate in substance and appropriate in tone. I'm not being dishonest. I'm simply a dissident to the PB norm of restricting sentiment on this sort of stuff to "Free Speech Yay!, Wokery Boo!".
You, OTOH, are grandstanding. You're seeking to parade your virtue as a robust free thinker with principles to burn. Rather than engaging with my actual post, you have projected wildly from it, manufactured a ton of skittles to then flamboyantly knock down with a ten pin. Facile. Tedious. And a teeny bit annoying.
We are not in disagreement Philip. Our own self interest is the ruling principle here. It is unfortunate that the rank incompetence and basic dishonesty of May and Hammond meant we were not ready to protect our interests even at the end of an extended transitional period but we are where we are and we should be building that inspection capacity now making it very clear that it will come into force within months.
A world-class piece of doublethink. The catastrophe that May and Hammond were trying to avoid somehow becomes their fault because Boris trashed their approach and deliberately led us into it!
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I forget, was it in Myanmar that the entirely mythical squadron of mint, crated Spitfires was waiting to be dug up a few years ago? The Telegraph almost wanked itself to death over that one.
Is that a flipping Comet? The Tank Museum would probably make them a nice offer for it!
It is indeed a Comet, with the long 17pdr gun. Note also the Universal Carrier and the selection of wheeled armour here. Looks like a Dingo or two behind the Ferret (this last admittedly post-WW2). (I'm being cautious as there is a Canadian vehicle that looks very like the Dingo.)
Having said that, I'm not sure they are in frontline service. After all, an incautious observer might conclude that the Raff still operated Hurricanes and Lancasters from observing parades in London.
we should be building that inspection capacity now making it very clear that it will come into force within months.
We should be reducing barriers to trade, not building them up...
But that would not be Brexit of course.
With the EUs performance on vaccines and their idiotic attacks on the UK your anti Brexit and pro EU tweets are going to fall on deaf ears. Most people are now pleased we left to get away from the stiffling bureaucracy of the EU which enabled this Country to vaccinate at 10 times the speed of the rest of Europe.
We are not in disagreement Philip. Our own self interest is the ruling principle here. It is unfortunate that the rank incompetence and basic dishonesty of May and Hammond meant we were not ready to protect our interests even at the end of an extended transitional period but we are where we are and we should be building that inspection capacity now making it very clear that it will come into force within months.
A world-class piece of doublethink. The catastrophe that May and Hammond were trying to avoid somehow becomes their fault because Boris trashed their approach and deliberately led us into it!
Oh don't be ridiculous!
Which of Theresa May's red lines did Boris breach?
Boris implemented what May and Hammond claimed they were working towards, but as Hammond has already confirmed in his own words he didn't believe in them yet rather than having the self-respect and dignity of resigning from the Cabinet and opposing it from the backbenches he undermined his own government instead.
We are not in disagreement Philip. Our own self interest is the ruling principle here. It is unfortunate that the rank incompetence and basic dishonesty of May and Hammond meant we were not ready to protect our interests even at the end of an extended transitional period but we are where we are and we should be building that inspection capacity now making it very clear that it will come into force within months.
A world-class piece of doublethink. The catastrophe that May and Hammond were trying to avoid somehow becomes their fault because Boris trashed their approach and deliberately led us into it!
We were leaving the EU and the SM. That was clear. The pretense that that was not going to make a difference and did not require steps taken to adapt, whatever the outcome of the final deal, was dishonest and incompetent (as well as being the worst negotiating tactic ever).
I saw down thread that May is regarded by polling as the worst PM ever. Although there is a clear recency bias in the polling it is very hard to think of worse in my lifetime. Only Brown comes close.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
This is not about free speech "extremists" - and what a weaselly phrase that is - a thoroughly dishonest attempt to put those who want to extend freedom and critical thinking on a par with those who want to limit it and close it down.
It's about saying that I - a non-Muslim - should not be expected to pay any regard whatever to the precepts of Islam. It is simply of no interest to me what the rules are on depictions of Mohammed or indeed anything else about him. If I want to draw him or refer to him I can do so in whatever way I choose. There is absolutely nothing special about him as far as any non-Muslim is concerned.
Whereas what is being attempted is to try and make him special to non- Muslims by making us pay regard to Islamic strictures about him. On the entirely spurious grounds of offence or hurt. Spurious - not because the hurt isn't real, it may be, though quite a lot seems confected - but because someone's personal hurt is an utterly irrelevant consideration.
Can I require Muslims to start saying the Our Father and going to confession because I am hurt that they don't recognise Catholicism as the One True Faith? No of course not. It is an utterly silly idea. And it is just as silly when Muslims demand that we pay attention to the tenets of their faith.
The really silly thing is people try to advance the perhaps reasonable point of 'there's usually no need to be a dick and be pointlessly offence', as if it is in some way related to whether it was 'right' that someone was a dick who was pointlessly offensive. The former is being generally polite, but has no bearing on it being ok for someone to do it, for any reason, nor on whether people who protest are being reasonable.
I really cannot understand why this issue causes some people to equivocate so much. I'm a huge fan of equivocation, but some things actually are black and white. Whether the provoking actions are a good idea or necessary is actually irrelevant (which is the weaksauce diversion seen here), when the reaction is so much more unreasonable. Indeed, every time people seek to walk on eggshells because of the reaction it just makes it easier to defend people who provoke because they are dicks.
Edit, or as cyclefree put it more succinctly:
You are describing politeness and good manners. But what you ignore is that these cannot be demanded by means of threats. If I am polite it is by my choice not because I fear being attacked if I am not.
People bring up the offence and of course say that they don't endorse the sort of behaviour that is threatening. I'm sure they believe it too.
But the outcome is the same - people are not defended for causing offence, intentionally or otherwise, and we bend over to those who did make threats by in effect telling people not to risk it.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
You're betraying your own ignorance here.
A belief in atheism is not remotely "as much a belief as a belief in a deity". A belief in a deity is equivalent to a belief in Russell's Teapot, or a flying spaghetti monster, not equivalent to atheism.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
What an interesting perspective! Bearing all that in mind, I'm sure you'll have no objection if all discussion of socialism and its adjuncts is 'avoided' in the public sphere under penalty of force - after all, socialism is pretty damned offensive to those who don't believe in in, who in this case actually form a majority.
Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not.
And yes, I know 'fascism by the back door' and 'where do you draw the line?' bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots...
I think she's being too pessimistic about the future, but we should be very wary of the zealots demanding lockdowns next autumn in order to save the nhs/deal with flu/variants/modelling.
we should be building that inspection capacity now making it very clear that it will come into force within months.
We should be reducing barriers to trade, not building them up...
But that would not be Brexit of course.
£79bn a year Scott. Year after year after year. How can you believe that to be in our interests? Did you want it to continue until the entire country was owned by European investors? Until all the profits of all our businesses belonged to someone else? The SM was absolutely not in our interests.
There are a lot of reasons for this and most of them are our own fault. Under investment and excessive consumption encouraged by governments of all stripes, short termism, weaker education below the elite, a rather painful naivety about state aid, an inability to turn the strength of our University sector into companies generating employment in the UK, I could go on all day. But the fact is we were being impoverished. We need to recalibrate.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Your reply bears little relation to my post.
But of course yes - it should not be illegal to cause religiou offence. If such a law was proposed I'd be strongly against.
Any other irrelevant banalities to offer?
Its not irrelevant because you were talking about "where to draw the line" against offending Muslims, for which the only right answer is "nowhere". Faith is not above offence.
Where do you draw the line against offending conservatives/socialists/communists/authoritarians? Beliefs are free to be attacked however you want.
But you don't mean "nowhere".
For example - you go into a Muslim area and stick one of those Hebdo cartoons through every letterbox.
We are not in disagreement Philip. Our own self interest is the ruling principle here. It is unfortunate that the rank incompetence and basic dishonesty of May and Hammond meant we were not ready to protect our interests even at the end of an extended transitional period but we are where we are and we should be building that inspection capacity now making it very clear that it will come into force within months.
A world-class piece of doublethink. The catastrophe that May and Hammond were trying to avoid somehow becomes their fault because Boris trashed their approach and deliberately led us into it!
Oh don't be ridiculous!
Which of Theresa May's red lines did Boris breach?
Boris implemented what May and Hammond claimed they were working towards, but as Hammond has already confirmed in his own words he didn't believe in them yet rather than having the self-respect and dignity of resigning from the Cabinet and opposing it from the backbenches he undermined his own government instead.
Comments
The moon on a stick!
Everything you love about Europe, with none of the things you hate about Foreigners.
£350m a week for the NHS
It was all lies of course, but that's not Dave's fault.
TBF he did in fact hold a press conference at which he explicitly said the Leave campaigns were telling lies, to no avail.
And now we're fucked.
There is also a quota issue. Presumably NI (and Speaker) would be exempt, what about Scotland and Wales?
(*Of course people change the way they vote under PR, but it's difficult to see the mathematics changing too much.)
Also, when it comes to voting systems the devil is in the detail.
Eg try asking: Do you want to lose the power to vote for an individual and only vote for a party?
Do you want to stop having your own MP who is accountable to you as an individual?
Do you want extremists in parliament on 5% of the vote?
We've been through the Enlightenment. I have no intention of throwing that away.
I get why people don’t always follow through to articles from tweets, but not reading the tweet itself..
‘a plurality of both Labour & Conservative voters’
But of course yes - it should not be illegal to cause religiou offence. If such a law was proposed I'd be strongly against.
Any other irrelevant banalities to offer?
Where do you draw the line against offending conservatives/socialists/communists/authoritarians? Beliefs are free to be attacked however you want.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Of course January tells us very little. The figures were enormously distorted by stockpiling in November/December and of course by the lockdown. It will be some time before anything like a clear picture starts to emerge. But when it does my expectation is that EU exports to the UK will fall by more than UK exports to the EU reducing our debilitating trade deficit that we have now run for 20 years a smidgeon. Which will be good for UK growth and UK employment.
Given the distortions of Covid and the relative speed at which the EU and the UK are coming out of lockdown it is likely to be at least a year before the new normal is anything like established. But I remain hopeful it is better than the old normal.
It is beholden upon us all to stand up for free speech and civil liberties.
It's about saying that I - a non-Muslim - should not be expected to pay any regard whatever to the precepts of Islam. It is simply of no interest to me what the rules are on depictions of Mohammed or indeed anything else about him. If I want to draw him or refer to him I can do so in whatever way I choose. There is absolutely nothing special about him as far as any non-Muslim is concerned.
Whereas what is being attempted is to try and make him special to non- Muslims by making us pay regard to Islamic strictures about him. On the entirely spurious grounds of offence or hurt. Spurious - not because the hurt isn't real, it may be, though quite a lot seems confected - but because someone's personal hurt is an utterly irrelevant consideration.
Can I require Muslims to start saying the Our Father and going to confession because I am hurt that they don't recognise Catholicism as the One True Faith? No of course not. It is an utterly silly idea. And it is just as silly when Muslims demand that we pay attention to the tenets of their faith.
Yes trade may be marginally harder with Europe in the future, while trade with the rest of the world may be made easier, but it will also be done without making financial contributions to the continent for the privilege of them exporting to us far more than we did in return.
Things can be not banned but nevertheless have a default of "avoid". There are plenty of examples of that.
There seems to be something increasingly banned on here however when it comes to these matters - any semblance of insight or nuance.
There is no belief it is wrong to scrutinise.
Even if what you say is true, we are not in the Arab world and we are not a credal state so whatever view is taken over there does not - and should not - apply here.
I agree that January tells us very little from looking at overall figures. There was stockpiling before. There were some one-off problems in the new regime (and some long term problems). There was also a big wave of Covid and everyone stuck at home with more uncertainty. We all, on both sides, need to wait a bit to assess the effects (we can point to genuine problems/successes, but based just on one, unusual, month on trade figures).
(A particular bugbear of mine is those comparing January 2021 with January 2020, ignoring the small issue of a global pandemic having some impact on economies in the meantime)
He explained how badly trade would be fucked by Brexit.
The voters ignored him.
Now trade is fucked, the Brexiteers still claim it isn't!
Like Indyref. The SNP wrote a whitepaper that includes the words once in a lifetime.
Zoomers still claim those words had no place in the campaign.
I am sad that the Brexiteers sold the voting public a lie, but as ever, the blame for that lies with the people who wanted it, advocated it and campaigned for it.
Not with those who opposed it.
You won! Suck it up...
But is it fair for someone in a position of authority to subject their charges to such offence ?
There's a difference between a teacher's choices, and the rules of open exchange in wider society, and the line drawn is not the same at all. Pupils, after all, legally have no choice over whether or not to be in school.
As many as seventeen tugboats now trying to drag her off the canal bank.
Whether they should or not, is up to both them and societal norms. Whether they are allowed to is up to the law, and the law should protect their right to sneer at whoever they please. The point at which the law on free speech needs to be moderated is when it spills over into violence not sneering.
A group which demand this in this way has no right to it. We are and have been offensive to all sorts of people throughout our history - look at 18th century cartoons for instance. Much of this was scurrilous, lurid, vulgar, tasteless, horrible etc. So what? It was a way of saying and showing that no-one was beyond challenge, no-one should think themselves beyond challenge and no-one, however humble or unimportant, should be afraid to challenge.
And I am afraid that this message has got be be made repeatedly to the Islamic bigots and extremists and all the other religious bigots and extremists until they get the point. Because wanting to be beyond challenge is exactly what they want. And this is intolerable in a free society.
The articles by Matthew Syed and Matthew Paris in the Times this weekend put it admirably. Very well worth reading.
My own humble effort on this topic is here - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/21/rendering-unto-caesar/
I THINK THIS MIGHT TELL YOU SOMETHING
https://twitter.com/fromtheranks/status/1376113934801977347?s=21
I forget, was it in Myanmar that the entirely mythical squadron of mint, crated Spitfires was waiting to be dug up a few years ago? The Telegraph almost wanked itself to death over that one.
When the UK is ready to do checks we can do whatever checks suit us best. Unless or until we determine we're in a position to do those checks, there's no point cutting off our own nose to spite our face.
My complaint is the default liberal assumption that all trade is good and that free trade is best. That is not necessarily so from the perspective of a single country. At roughly £100k a job our trade deficit in goods with the EU was costing us the equivalent of about 970k jobs in this country. That was offset to a modest extent (roughly £18bn) by a surplus in services but the net effect on employment was severely negative as were the long term wealth effects of such a deficit.
Now of course we do not want to stop trading with the EU. We do not want the disruption that would cause to our economy. But we do need to rebalance that trade to a somewhat healthier situation and if that means that exports fall but not as fast as imports that may well prove to be a very good thing.
*When the Danish newspaper published its offensive cartoons, way back when, often included with the actual cartoons was a photoshopped image of a ... checks notes ... French pig-squealing contestant.
*Samuel Paty: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56325254
French schoolgirl admits lying about murdered teacher
completely.
unrelated.
Having your views challenged should be part of an education.
Understanding that views can be challenged should be part of an education.
As I put it - "they object to their views being challenged by other facts and viewpoints being presented.
This is a curious view to take of education whose essence, surely, is to teach children what they cannot learn at home, to introduce them to a world of ideas and knowledge far beyond the confines of family."
Or Matthew Syed: " They are worried that their children might decide that Islam isn’t for them, that it is a not as inviolable as their elders imply, and may even question its more “extremist” interpretations: the burqa, the misogyny, the homophobia. And perhaps they will experience this not as bullying, but as blessed liberation.
I think of my second cousin, who spent years in turmoil about his homosexuality, unable to reconcile it with his community’s interpretation of the Quran. Only when he started to question what he had been told was absolute truth, only when he was encouraged to think critically, was he released from these invisible bonds, if not quite yet the feelings of guilt. How many millions are in such a position, and how many will remain if educational facilities are scared to challenge the prevailing dogmas?"
That is exactly why these matters must be taught and discussed in schools not left until later - or never, in reality.
Of course traders, who love volatility, would cry bloody murder, so it'll never happen.
...Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by:
treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position
having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions
showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others
not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs
ensuring that personal beliefs are not expressed in ways which exploit pupils’ vulnerability or might lead them to break the law...
Of course none of this in any way justifies violent protest, but I think you are conflating two issues here in a way which does not justify the teacher's original decisions.
(Of course there is a separate issue of whether the cartoon was included in the curriculum materials for the school, which I don't know.)
We're simply not prepared for doing all the checks that are needed. That's largely because of Hammond wasting three years when he should have spent that time preparing for the checks, afterall what we've agreed is pretty much as good a free trade deal as we could get under the red lines that he was supposed to be working towards. But the problem is he opposed the red lines and wanted to undermine them and not preparing for Brexit was a part of that.
Long-term the checks are needed unless we agree a deal with the EU that they aren't (which may not be in our interests). In the short term waiving them until we are ready to do it without extra disruption may be in our self-interest.
We should do whatever is in our own self-interest.
So far this month I've ordered a Harley Davidson Pan America in anticipation of some hypothetical trip to the Pyrenees, a CNC plasma cutter and nearly four grand's worth of OEM E36 bolts and other parts from BMW. I DON'T OWN AN E36. It might be time to go somewhere else.
But I don't think that is what we're talking about here.
None of that as I read it stops a teacher teaching about blasphemy. Nor does it stop teaching about homosexuality - the target of the last protests. And yet the protests always seem to come from Islamic community leaders who, however, they dress it up, want to stop their children knowing about the world beyond the strict confines of Islamic belief, as interpreted and taught by those self-same leaders.
That is not education and we do children a complete disservice by pretending that it is or by denying them the right to a proper education, chief among which are the tools to challenge what their parents tell them.
Was it necessary to show a cartoon know to be highly offensive to some to do that ?
Again, you are presenting condemnation of the unacceptable behaviour of protestors as justification of the teacher's actions.
Both things can be wrong.
If those checks mean fewer imports, then I can live with that.
Was it appropriate? Yes, 100% absolutely yes.
I really cannot understand why this issue causes some people to equivocate so much. I'm a huge fan of equivocation, but some things actually are black and white. Whether the provoking actions are a good idea or necessary is actually irrelevant (which is the weaksauce diversion seen here), when the reaction is so much more unreasonable. Indeed, every time people seek to walk on eggshells because of the reaction it just makes it easier to defend people who provoke because they are dicks.
But that would not be Brexit of course.
I'm not arguing for banning anything. I believe in free speech under the law. Just like you do. Just like most people do who say they support free speech. But there are exceptions. There are people who elevate totally untrammeled free speech above all else, and these people absolutely are "free speech extremists". There's nothing weaselly at all about that phrase. It's accurate in substance and appropriate in tone. I'm not being dishonest. I'm simply a dissident to the PB norm of restricting sentiment on this sort of stuff to "Free Speech Yay!, Wokery Boo!".
You, OTOH, are grandstanding. You're seeking to parade your virtue as a robust free thinker with principles to burn. Rather than engaging with my actual post, you have projected wildly from it, manufactured a ton of skittles to then flamboyantly knock down with a ten pin. Facile. Tedious. And a teeny bit annoying.
https://twitter.com/Fromtheranks/status/1376114001084624903
Having said that, I'm not sure they are in frontline service. After all, an incautious observer might conclude that the Raff still operated Hurricanes and Lancasters from observing parades in London.
Which of Theresa May's red lines did Boris breach?
Boris implemented what May and Hammond claimed they were working towards, but as Hammond has already confirmed in his own words he didn't believe in them yet rather than having the self-respect and dignity of resigning from the Cabinet and opposing it from the backbenches he undermined his own government instead.
I saw down thread that May is regarded by polling as the worst PM ever. Although there is a clear recency bias in the polling it is very hard to think of worse in my lifetime. Only Brown comes close.
You are describing politeness and good manners. But what you ignore is that these cannot be demanded by means of threats. If I am polite it is by my choice not because I fear being attacked if I am not.
People bring up the offence and of course say that they don't endorse the sort of behaviour that is threatening. I'm sure they believe it too.
But the outcome is the same - people are not defended for causing offence, intentionally or otherwise, and we bend over to those who did make threats by in effect telling people not to risk it.
And the lesson people learn is that threats work.
A belief in atheism is not remotely "as much a belief as a belief in a deity". A belief in a deity is equivalent to a belief in Russell's Teapot, or a flying spaghetti monster, not equivalent to atheism.
Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not.
And yes, I know 'fascism by the back door' and 'where do you draw the line?' bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots...
I think she's being too pessimistic about the future, but we should be very wary of the zealots demanding lockdowns next autumn in order to save the nhs/deal with flu/variants/modelling.
There are a lot of reasons for this and most of them are our own fault. Under investment and excessive consumption encouraged by governments of all stripes, short termism, weaker education below the elite, a rather painful naivety about state aid, an inability to turn the strength of our University sector into companies generating employment in the UK, I could go on all day. But the fact is we were being impoverished. We need to recalibrate.
For example - you go into a Muslim area and stick one of those Hebdo cartoons through every letterbox.
What's the Philip Thompson Construct view there?