This Diana statue with the random children. Did the sculptor misread the brief? If it was an order for a statue of Michael Jackson then perhaps add the kids.
You can't unsee it...
Hang on - someone's been monkeying with the PaS booklet:
Anyway, am I to take that those absolutely not indulging in culture wars are dictating that people who said the fans could boo if they liked aren’t allowed to celebrate England winning at football?
The English people who said that they’d be supporting other teams because of England taking the knee should definitely ram it if England win.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
His reason for not wearing a poppy shirt (it’s about more than just two world wars) could be viewed as being as disingenuous as linking taking the knee to the BLM organisation.
But this is why I’m not keen on either. At least poppy shirts are only once a season, mind.
I don't think you can boo England taking the knee and at the same time support having poppies on shirts.
I suspect I’m in a small minority of football fans opposed to both poppies and kneeling.
I'm with you. I don't think it is a small minority.
The vast majority of people want to watch sport, to get away from life and politics.
If a club wants to take a minute before a match to remember a fallen hero, of the club or country, then that’s fine. What tends to annoy people is when these things are seen as compulsory, or overtly political.
The FA had a perfectly serviceable “Kick It Out” campaign, which made huge strides over the years in changing the behaviour of fans.
What grates about the current campaign, is that it’s been going on for months now, and the actions of many of those involved in “Anti-Racism” can come across as a little, err, dare I say, racist.
We are all opposed to racism. It's little to do with being against racism, it's about projecting an image peacock-style that you are against racism. Not the same. It is a pose. The FA should focus on tackling the overt racism displayed by some of the supporters which continues to be a disgrace.
Indeed. Great strides have been made over the years, I remember as a Liverpool-supporting kid in the ‘80s, wondering why the fans were making monkey noises whenever John Barnes got the ball. Thankfully that sort of thing doesn’t happen any more, and the clubs have been quick to ban fans for racist gestures.
Football clubs and players would be better off with a long-running social media boycott, if that’s where the abuse is now coming from. Put pressure on Twitter and Facebook, to kick racist abusers off their platforms.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
His reason for not wearing a poppy shirt (it’s about more than just two world wars) could be viewed as being as disingenuous as linking taking the knee to the BLM organisation.
But this is why I’m not keen on either. At least poppy shirts are only once a season, mind.
I don't think you can boo England taking the knee and at the same time support having poppies on shirts.
I suspect I’m in a small minority of football fans opposed to both poppies and kneeling.
I doubt its a small minority we are both in.
I don't think it is contradictory to be both fully in favour of wearing poppies, and have serious doubts about things like "poppies on shirts". Any campaign like poppies which draws its strength from something which is both a personal decision, but a personal decision for a cause which endures widespread public support, gains risks when the personal decision element of it is seen to be compromised. When wearing a poppy becomes a matter of peer or societal pressure instead.
I'd endorse Dr Foxy's comments about football and father-son bonding. Younger Son wanted to go and watch Southend (yes, really!) when he was about 9, but we lived 10 miles away. So I took him and that ended up with a couple of season tickets for two or three years until he got to secondary school and could go on his own. Now, when he's around or we're with him, we still go to matches, although no longer Southend. Never had quite the same 'both do' with Elder Son.
The worst thing my Dad ever did to me was make me a Spurs fan. It's been the biggest source of misery in my life. And now I have done it to my own kids and the first grandson.
Harrowing story, and all too common.
#EndTheCycle
Grew up almost equidistant between Swindon and Southampton. Dad chose to take me to Swindon. #39yearsofhurt. They fuck you up your mum and dad...
My in laws are all Spurs fans and have given Spurs to my middle daughter. I've never understood the Spurs attitude that supporting them is somehow uniquely painful. They are, what, the sixth richest club in the country, and about the sixth most successful. Yes, they haven't done as well as Man Utd in my lifetime, but they've done better than most clubs. To a Stockport County fan their tales of woe sound like a man complaining his hot tub takes slightly too long to warm up.
What you are hearing is not a complaint that their hot tub is taking too long to warm up, but that the attractive blonde in the advert isn’t there
Certainly the US polling shows that the GOP is still very much Trump's party.
If Trump wants to run again in 2024 he is therefore highly likely to win the GOP nomination for a third time, a feat only previously achieved by Nixon.
However with President Biden still governing as a relative moderate and with solid approval ratings he is unlikely to defeat the incumbent if he runs again, in which case I think Trump would likely sit it out and let a fellow Trumpite like DeSantis get the nod.
However if Biden steps down and VP Harris ends up the 2024 Democratic nominee then Trump would fancy his chances as she would allow him to run the divisive, culture war campaign he wants far more than Biden would
I think that is a really good analysis and my betting is in line with it.
70% of the GOP are pro Trump and will support his nomination or anyone he anoints. So I'm betting on Trump (or his nominee if it turns out that way) for the GOP nomination. That looks like a no-brainer.
However around 30% of the GOP and a large majority of independents do not support Trump. So a large majority will vote against Trump (or his nominee) in the 2024 GE. It will be a Democrat landslide. So I'm betting on a Democrat win. That looks very likely too against Trump or his nominee.
If Republican legislators then attempt to overturn a Democrat landslide there could literally be a civil war. But I would bet against a hot war if such a bet was available.
If it came to it, it wouldn't be guns (neighbour against neighbour where the Republicans probably have more guns) but individual economic sanctions against guilty Republican legislators and office holders who would find their funds drying up, bank accounts inoperative, blackballed in public events etc. GOP media mysteriously turned off. Asymmetric warfare.
But it won't come to that. 1.72 on a Democrat win is good value in my opinion.
I'd say 1.72 is about right. But tying money for that long at that price makes it bad value. If that makes sense?
That makes perfect sense. You have to allow for at least 5% pa opportunity cost on long term bets. On that bet I'd allow for maybe 20% reduction in value.
1.72 is a 58% chance. If you believe it is e.g. 1.25 i.e. an 80% chance you are looking at an expected 22% gain on a stake but losing 20% of you stake in opportunity cost. As it happens, I think the chance is greater than 80% but the return is much reduced. [I hope I've got the arithmetic right here].
In general, for this reason, I avoid all long term bets (longer than a year).
Anyway, am I to take that those absolutely not indulging in culture wars are dictating that people who said the fans could boo if they liked aren’t allowed to celebrate England winning at football?
The English people who said that they’d be supporting other teams because of England taking the knee should definitely ram it if England win.
They won’t care if they’re supporting someone else will they?
This Diana statue with the random children. Did the sculptor misread the brief? If it was an order for a statue of Michael Jackson then perhaps add the kids.
According to the Metro, this uniform has been called "misogynistic" - I'm not sure who by. The North Korean skipping march (performed by both sexes in normal boots) is misanthropic.
I presume that for the actual parade they will be marching in dress uniform, probably skirts for the ladies, and will be wearing heels with them. So they are practising marching in heels. Quite reasonably. No, they aren't expected to fight the Russian occupier in them. Just as we don't expect the household cavalry to drive tanks in cuirass and riding boots
That’s the simplest, and therefore most likely explanation - that as the actual parade will be in No.1 uniform, so they should practice marching in No.1 uniform shoes. Practicing in boots but marching in dress shoes, likely screws with the posture and timing.
I don't see how it's damaging to the country at all. I can see how some people might think it could be damaging to the United States of America.
The end of US democracy will create global instability, protectionism and collapse. Any idea how much of UK pension funds are invested in the US alone? Let alone all the other economies heavily dependent on the US.
This damages UK security and economy as well as that of the US, which was fairly obviously what the author was intending.
US democracy does itself no favours though.
Why does it take California over a month to count Presidential ballots as one example.
There would be no 'stop the count' calls if counts were done competently.
We went over all this in November, but to be fair i think there is a fair amount of rubbish talked about things like this, and US elections in general. There are many reasons why counts in the US take a long time, and whilst some of them are no doubt the consequence of poor administration, many are perfectly valid once one looks into the detail and the real reasons.
And some of them (no sniggering at the back) are actually because the US often aspires to a far higher degree of accuracy on the electoral counts (as opposed to just the electoral outcomes) than in most of the rest of the world. Whether often it is a spurious level of accuracy is another matter, but they are certainly motivated by the necessity to head off the possibility of any sort of legal challenge to results of the sort of that would be very rare in eg. the UK, where once the results are declared they are basically accepted as true and correct barring some glaring evidence to the contrary that comes to light subsequently.
Also that it takes time to count and certify votes is in large part because the system is designed to allow it. In almost every other country the time between election and outcome becoming reality is very short if not instantaneous. The victor in an election takes over in hours if not days. In the US there are lengthy periods built in - so naturally the electoral authorities take advantage of that. So why does California take a long time to count the votes (and contrary to perception they are far from alone in that, and arguably have more excuse given their size). The best answer is because they can. Maybe if in eg. the Presidential election the outcome of California was in doubt they might speed up a bit...
If the US electoral system operates in the way it does in order to keep the lawyers from getting involved then its clearly not achieving that aim.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
I don't see how it's damaging to the country at all. I can see how some people might think it could be damaging to the United States of America.
The end of US democracy will create global instability, protectionism and collapse. Any idea how much of UK pension funds are invested in the US alone? Let alone all the other economies heavily dependent on the US.
This damages UK security and economy as well as that of the US, which was fairly obviously what the author was intending.
US democracy does itself no favours though.
Why does it take California over a month to count Presidential ballots as one example.
There would be no 'stop the count' calls if counts were done competently.
We went over all this in November, but to be fair i think there is a fair amount of rubbish talked about things like this, and US elections in general. There are many reasons why counts in the US take a long time, and whilst some of them are no doubt the consequence of poor administration, many are perfectly valid once one looks into the detail and the real reasons.
And some of them (no sniggering at the back) are actually because the US often aspires to a far higher degree of accuracy on the electoral counts (as opposed to just the electoral outcomes) than in most of the rest of the world. Whether often it is a spurious level of accuracy is another matter, but they are certainly motivated by the necessity to head off the possibility of any sort of legal challenge to results of the sort of that would be very rare in eg. the UK, where once the results are declared they are basically accepted as true and correct barring some glaring evidence to the contrary that comes to light subsequently.
Also that it takes time to count and certify votes is in large part because the system is designed to allow it. In almost every other country the time between election and outcome becoming reality is very short if not instantaneous. The victor in an election takes over in hours if not days. In the US there are lengthy periods built in - so naturally the electoral authorities take advantage of that. So why does California take a long time to count the votes (and contrary to perception they are far from alone in that, and arguably have more excuse given their size). The best answer is because they can. Maybe if in eg. the Presidential election the outcome of California was in doubt they might speed up a bit...
If the US electoral system operates in the way it does in order to keep the lawyers from getting involved then its clearly not achieving that aim.
I didn't say it exists as it does to keep the lawyers from getting involved. The lawyers getting involved is a given. I said it exists as it does to minimise the chances of lawyers successfully overturning results.
On topic, presumably the GOP voter argument is that Biden was responsible because he "stole the election", and while the riots were perhaps regrettable it's time to move on from these "perfectly understandable expressions of outrage" and concentrate on the evils of the Democrats.
It has a certain insane logic, but it essentially means that they don't think the democratic process has worked. That's an extremely dangerous state of mind for even a third of the population to be in, and I can't think of any Western country that has had anything like it since WW2. Because if they don't think democracy works, they may start to think about what else they can do to get the "correct" result - anything from stocking up with guns to being ready to support a coup.
We are all opposed to racism. It's little to do with being against racism, it's about projecting an image peacock-style that you are against racism. Not the same. It is a pose. The FA should focus on tackling the overt racism displayed by some of the supporters which continues to be a disgrace.
As your last line notes, not all football fans are opposed to racism. It is no wonder that the knee gesture winds up the racists - they hate being called racist just because they don't like people who aren't the same shade of puce red they are are like to call them names.
Football either goes after the racists head on or England end up a pariah as teams with overtly racist supports have elsewhere. That the likes of Patel provide succour to the racists because she knows the racists are now voting Tory is just desperately sad.
According to the Metro, this uniform has been called "misogynistic" - I'm not sure who by. The North Korean skipping march (performed by both sexes in normal boots) is misanthropic.
I presume that for the actual parade they will be marching in dress uniform, probably skirts for the ladies, and will be wearing heels with them. So they are practising marching in heels. Quite reasonably. No, they aren't expected to fight the Russian occupier in them. Just as we don't expect the household cavalry to drive tanks in cuirass and riding boots
That’s the simplest, and therefore most likely explanation - that as the actual parade will be in No.1 uniform, so they should practice marching in No.1 uniform shoes. Practicing in boots but marching in dress shoes, likely screws with the posture and timing.
I would also guess that Ukrainian lady soldiers in no 1 uniform look extremely hot.
At which point I ought to get my coat, or at least go and do the post-breakfast washing up.
On topic, presumably the GOP voter argument is that Biden was responsible because he "stole the election", and while the riots were perhaps regrettable it's time to move on from these "perfectly understandable expressions of outrage" and concentrate on the evils of the Democrats.
It has a certain insane logic, but it essentially means that they don't think the democratic process has worked. That's an extremely dangerous state of mind for even a third of the population to be in, and I can't think of any Western country that has had anything like it since WW2. Because if they don't think democracy works, they may start to think about what else they can do to get the "correct" result - anything from stocking up with guns to being ready to support a coup.
It is fortunate that the election wasn't closer.
And that Trump was more chaotic than competent in his malignancy.
On topic, presumably the GOP voter argument is that Biden was responsible because he "stole the election", and while the riots were perhaps regrettable it's time to move on from these "perfectly understandable expressions of outrage" and concentrate on the evils of the Democrats.
It has a certain insane logic, but it essentially means that they don't think the democratic process has worked. That's an extremely dangerous state of mind for even a third of the population to be in, and I can't think of any Western country that has had anything like it since WW2. Because if they don't think democracy works, they may start to think about what else they can do to get the "correct" result - anything from stocking up with guns to being ready to support a coup.
There's also the flip side that once one sides effectively rejects democracy, it opens up the possibility of how the other side will react in response. It's very easy at the moment to say that Republicans are increasingly against democracy and the Democratic Party are in favour. But this raises the stakes for the latter as well. And the more the areas of electoral administration that the Republicans do control take measures which are perceived to rig and/or suppress the opposition vote, and do so successfully to potentially retain power that then obviously leaves the "pro-democracy" party in a dilemma as to whether to start to fight fire with fire...
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
If footballers taking the knee to oppose racism is political, so is them wearing shirts with poppies imprinted on them. I don't think either are.
Not at all
The poppy campaign is explicitly charitable.
“Taking the knee” is indelibly associated with Black Lives Matter which is a very political campaign.
You can’t adopt the symbols of a political campaign and claim you are nothing to do with it.
The question therefore is what the FA do about the racism infesting the stands. Kick it out isn't working. Taking the knee has the racists booing. If the team cannot be seen to stand up to the racists in the stands then how do we stamp it out?
Use a different symbol for a start - one not associated with a political “side”. Anti-racism is something the vast majority should be able to support but there is too much baggage associated with BLM.
The basic policy of isolating racists and banning them from matches seems a sensible one to me. But that’s going to take time. I’m sure that there are specific improvements to can be made to enhance the effectiveness of the policy but they key is to make sure that the vast bulk of fans treat the racists with the contempt they deserve. A good analogy is drunk driving: there are always some holdouts and idiots, but people of my generation are far more aware and careful than our parents.
On topic, presumably the GOP voter argument is that Biden was responsible because he "stole the election", and while the riots were perhaps regrettable it's time to move on from these "perfectly understandable expressions of outrage" and concentrate on the evils of the Democrats.
It has a certain insane logic, but it essentially means that they don't think the democratic process has worked. That's an extremely dangerous state of mind for even a third of the population to be in, and I can't think of any Western country that has had anything like it since WW2. Because if they don't think democracy works, they may start to think about what else they can do to get the "correct" result - anything from stocking up with guns to being ready to support a coup.
There's also the flip side that once one sides effectively rejects democracy, it opens up the possibility of how the other side will react in response. It's very easy at the moment to say that Republicans are increasingly against democracy and the Democratic Party are in favour. But this raises the stakes for the latter as well. And the more the areas of electoral administration that the Republicans do control take measures which are perceived to rig and/or suppress the opposition vote, and do so successfully to potentially retain power that then obviously leaves the "pro-democracy" party in a dilemma as to whether to start to fight fire with fire...
Indeed.
One of the grim ironies of recent events is that the Trumpian voter suppression techniques were actually largely borrowed from Democratic practices in the Jim Crow era.
I see not liking Clarkson is a sign of people’s ghastly, woke proclivities. Thankfully his fanbois’ political allegiances remain totes unpredictable.
Personally it’s his 'haw haw, I'm a mechanical Luddite me!' attitude that irks me, it’s like learning Kenneth Clark produced this sort of thing in his spare time:
I think the thing most people like or admire (if not like) about Clarkson is the ability to think independently and not be afraid or peer pressured out of it to go against the prevailing mood music. Doesn't really matter about his actual views or politics just that he does have those views irrespective of what the zeitgeist is . Even more impressive for him as he has done this from a fairly liberal metro entrenched view of the world from within his old employer the BBC .
Its also why a lot of people admire (and find interesting) Galloway, Ken Livingstone , Thatcher , Farage , David Icke etc . Its why a lot of people dont admire most modern MPs who rely on focus groups and on message instructions (sam e in corporate world as well)
It's funny - I find Clarkson entirely predictable and, therefore, rather dull. You just know what he is going to say. Very rich TV presenter buys farm, makes TV programme about the struggle to make it work to help pay for it has been done many times before, hasn't it?
“Been done many times before”
1 Has it? I can’t think of any examples, though I may not have been paying attention.
2 Even if it has, formula TV is not always a bad thing: someone is murdered, eccentric detective solves the case is the basic plot of hundreds of series of books and TV shows.
None of this is a comment of Clarkson’s show. I will give it a go, but having grown up on a farm I will probably have a different perspective on it to many here.
Didn’t Rebecca Loos do something on a farm?
Quite possibly: I haven't been watching much TV over the last few years. Can you remember the name of the show and if it was any good?
I'd endorse Dr Foxy's comments about football and father-son bonding. Younger Son wanted to go and watch Southend (yes, really!) when he was about 9, but we lived 10 miles away. So I took him and that ended up with a couple of season tickets for two or three years until he got to secondary school and could go on his own. Now, when he's around or we're with him, we still go to matches, although no longer Southend. Never had quite the same 'both do' with Elder Son.
The worst thing my Dad ever did to me was make me a Spurs fan. It's been the biggest source of misery in my life. And now I have done it to my own kids and the first grandson.
Harrowing story, and all too common.
#EndTheCycle
Grew up almost equidistant between Swindon and Southampton. Dad chose to take me to Swindon. #39yearsofhurt. They fuck you up your mum and dad...
My in laws are all Spurs fans and have given Spurs to my middle daughter. I've never understood the Spurs attitude that supporting them is somehow uniquely painful. They are, what, the sixth richest club in the country, and about the sixth most successful. Yes, they haven't done as well as Man Utd in my lifetime, but they've done better than most clubs. To a Stockport County fan their tales of woe sound like a man complaining his hot tub takes slightly too long to warm up.
They should consider Newcastle United. At the point Mike Ashley bought the club, we were on the same level financially as Spurs.
But had won nothing since 1969. Nearly as long as England, but we get to fail in multiple competitions each year, rather than once every two years.
I can't see the Conservative Party getting anywhere complaining about others lying.
OTOH it puts those who support Labour in an awkward position if they want to make much of the PM's relaxed attitude to the truth.
What's the story? Nothing there when I clicked on the link.
I think it's the use of the photo of Boris and Modi and the reason for it.
Reeves says the reason Labour put a picture of Boris and Modi with a caption saying words to the effect of ‘not on your side’ on a leaflet aimed at Muslims was because Boris let the Delta variant in to the country, nothing to do with stoking divisive religious tension, which it was
On topic, presumably the GOP voter argument is that Biden was responsible because he "stole the election", and while the riots were perhaps regrettable it's time to move on from these "perfectly understandable expressions of outrage" and concentrate on the evils of the Democrats.
It has a certain insane logic, but it essentially means that they don't think the democratic process has worked. That's an extremely dangerous state of mind for even a third of the population to be in, and I can't think of any Western country that has had anything like it since WW2. Because if they don't think democracy works, they may start to think about what else they can do to get the "correct" result - anything from stocking up with guns to being ready to support a coup.
It is going to be very rough inside America for non-crazies, because a significant minority of the population have declared the slight majority to be un-American. Stuff like The Handmaid's Tale are so much more convincing decades after being written as America slides towards zealotry and absolutism.
We are all opposed to racism. It's little to do with being against racism, it's about projecting an image peacock-style that you are against racism. Not the same. It is a pose. The FA should focus on tackling the overt racism displayed by some of the supporters which continues to be a disgrace.
As your last line notes, not all football fans are opposed to racism. It is no wonder that the knee gesture winds up the racists - they hate being called racist just because they don't like people who aren't the same shade of puce red they are are like to call them names.
Football either goes after the racists head on or England end up a pariah as teams with overtly racist supports have elsewhere. That the likes of Patel provide succour to the racists because she knows the racists are now voting Tory is just desperately sad.
Maybe the knee gesture does windup the racists. It also winds up a much greater number of fans who don't think BLM is a particularly wholesome organisation.
Anyway, am I to take that those absolutely not indulging in culture wars are dictating that people who said the fans could boo if they liked aren’t allowed to celebrate England winning at football?
The English people who said that they’d be supporting other teams because of England taking the knee should definitely ram it if England win.
Yep. I'm sorry (not) but reactionary knob-end snowflakes who got so precious about The Knee that they decided to root and predict against the team are now excluded from this party. Doesn't matter what they try and do - it's irredeemable. Pretend they didn't mean it? Nope, won't work. Announce a change of heart? Nope. Transparently fake. Offer to buy all the drinks if they're let in? Well, maybe, but strictly on that basis, and no mixing with the genuine PATRIOTS who manage to combine a love of football and country with a mature and resilient temperament, and a clear-eyed view of how far we still are (despite much progress made) from eradicating racism in sport and society.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
If footballers taking the knee to oppose racism is political, so is them wearing shirts with poppies imprinted on them. I don't think either are.
Not at all
The poppy campaign is explicitly charitable.
“Taking the knee” is indelibly associated with Black Lives Matter which is a very political campaign.
You can’t adopt the symbols of a political campaign and claim you are nothing to do with it.
The question therefore is what the FA do about the racism infesting the stands. Kick it out isn't working. Taking the knee has the racists booing. If the team cannot be seen to stand up to the racists in the stands then how do we stamp it out?
Use a different symbol for a start - one not associated with a political “side”. Anti-racism is something the vast majority should be able to support but there is too much baggage associated with BLM.
The basic policy of isolating racists and banning them from matches seems a sensible one to me. But that’s going to take time. I’m sure that there are specific improvements to can be made to enhance the effectiveness of the policy but they key is to make sure that the vast bulk of fans treat the racists with the contempt they deserve. A good analogy is drunk driving: there are always some holdouts and idiots, but people of my generation are far more aware and careful than our parents.
Meh. Kick it out continues to make slow progress. That the racists want to write off BLM and the need to recognise that whites and non-whites are equal is not something that "I'm not a racist" people should be endorsing.
Take the knee is a cultural thing now. Own it. Embrace it. Fear of the alleged marxists who its support to represent are - as Douglas Adams put it so beautifully - the figments of a deranged imagination.
Marxism is not going to sweep the world thanks to take the knee gestures. Basic human decency might.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
If footballers taking the knee to oppose racism is political, so is them wearing shirts with poppies imprinted on them. I don't think either are.
Not at all
The poppy campaign is explicitly charitable.
“Taking the knee” is indelibly associated with Black Lives Matter which is a very political campaign.
You can’t adopt the symbols of a political campaign and claim you are nothing to do with it.
I'm sure you're right. Raheem Sterling and Marcus Rashford have read a lot of critical race theory. Although they're extremely rich, they want to destroy capitalism. And while they're at it, they think the nuclear family is the source of many woes. And they want to take the battle to the streets.
Or maybe they're just sick of the amount of vile racist abuse they have to suffer from a small but vociferous minority of football 'supporters'.
I didn’t say that Rashford, Sterling or others agreed with BLM’s policy.
But that the gesture is *associated with* that agenda.
To go all Godwin on you… it’s like claiming the old Roman greeting, straightening the right arm, can be divorced from its Nazi associations.
Sri Lanka looked good for 2 overs but we are back to normal now. Maybe the England players are keen to watch the second half of the grand prix.
Given that England have already won the series, it would have been a noble gesture, having won the toss, for Morgan to choose to bat first rather than put Sri Lanka in. At least then the crowd (both those there and me on TV) might have enjoyed a reasonable amount of cricket. As it is, I'm inclined to turn it off already.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
If footballers taking the knee to oppose racism is political, so is them wearing shirts with poppies imprinted on them. I don't think either are.
Not at all
The poppy campaign is explicitly charitable.
“Taking the knee” is indelibly associated with Black Lives Matter which is a very political campaign.
You can’t adopt the symbols of a political campaign and claim you are nothing to do with it.
I'm sure you're right. Raheem Sterling and Marcus Rashford have read a lot of critical race theory. Although they're extremely rich, they want to destroy capitalism. And while they're at it, they think the nuclear family is the source of many woes. And they want to take the battle to the streets.
Or maybe they're just sick of the amount of vile racist abuse they have to suffer from a small but vociferous minority of football 'supporters'.
I didn’t say that Rashford, Sterling or others agreed with BLM’s policy.
But that the gesture is *associated with* that agenda.
To go all Godwin on you… it’s like claiming the old Roman greeting, straightening the right arm, can be divorced from its Nazi associations.
Only a small minority of people associate the England team's knee gesture with CRT or radical marxism.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
If footballers taking the knee to oppose racism is political, so is them wearing shirts with poppies imprinted on them. I don't think either are.
Not at all
The poppy campaign is explicitly charitable.
“Taking the knee” is indelibly associated with Black Lives Matter which is a very political campaign.
You can’t adopt the symbols of a political campaign and claim you are nothing to do with it.
The question therefore is what the FA do about the racism infesting the stands. Kick it out isn't working. Taking the knee has the racists booing. If the team cannot be seen to stand up to the racists in the stands then how do we stamp it out?
Use a different symbol for a start - one not associated with a political “side”. Anti-racism is something the vast majority should be able to support but there is too much baggage associated with BLM.
The basic policy of isolating racists and banning them from matches seems a sensible one to me. But that’s going to take time. I’m sure that there are specific improvements to can be made to enhance the effectiveness of the policy but they key is to make sure that the vast bulk of fans treat the racists with the contempt they deserve. A good analogy is drunk driving: there are always some holdouts and idiots, but people of my generation are far more aware and careful than our parents.
I've been reading (or more accurately listening to on audiobook) a lot of Agatha Christie and Dorothy L Sayers books recently: the attitudes to drink-driving and to smoking are very different to today's.
There is also a fair bit of casual racism and an attitude to the lower classes that makes the current government look communist, but I was expecting that.
I don't see how taking the knee is supporting BLM any more than recycling is supporting Extinction Rebellion
The Swastika existed well before the Nazi co-oped it. Taking the knee became the gesture to do in support of BLM movement, see Starmer doing it.
In the NFL (where it started to be used as a protest statement), they have moved away from this gesture for exactly this reason. A few players continue to do it, but it is a tiny minority. Instead there is a collective arm in arm gesture and an Inspire Change campaign.
Sri Lanka looked good for 2 overs but we are back to normal now. Maybe the England players are keen to watch the second half of the grand prix.
Given that England have already won the series, it would have been a noble gesture, having won the toss, for Morgan to choose to bat first rather than put Sri Lanka in. At least then the crowd (both those there and me on TV) might have enjoyed a reasonable amount of cricket. As it is, I'm inclined to turn it off already.
Yes, I was disappointed not to see England bat and maybe see if they could rack up 300+. Sri Lanka batting first makes it all a bit dull.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
If footballers taking the knee to oppose racism is political, so is them wearing shirts with poppies imprinted on them. I don't think either are.
Not at all
The poppy campaign is explicitly charitable.
“Taking the knee” is indelibly associated with Black Lives Matter which is a very political campaign.
You can’t adopt the symbols of a political campaign and claim you are nothing to do with it.
The question therefore is what the FA do about the racism infesting the stands. Kick it out isn't working. Taking the knee has the racists booing. If the team cannot be seen to stand up to the racists in the stands then how do we stamp it out?
Use a different symbol for a start - one not associated with a political “side”. Anti-racism is something the vast majority should be able to support but there is too much baggage associated with BLM.
The basic policy of isolating racists and banning them from matches seems a sensible one to me. But that’s going to take time. I’m sure that there are specific improvements to can be made to enhance the effectiveness of the policy but they key is to make sure that the vast bulk of fans treat the racists with the contempt they deserve. A good analogy is drunk driving: there are always some holdouts and idiots, but people of my generation are far more aware and careful than our parents.
I've been reading (or more accurately listening to on audiobook) a lot of Agatha Christie and Dorothy L Sayers books recently: the attitudes to drink-driving and to smoking are very different to today's.
There is also a fair bit of casual racism and an attitude to the lower classes that makes the current government look communist, but I was expecting that.
Also the attitude to, e.g. sex outside marriage.
Which I have always found amusing given that both had, ummmm, interesting sex lives...
I don't see how it's damaging to the country at all. I can see how some people might think it could be damaging to the United States of America.
The end of US democracy will create global instability, protectionism and collapse. Any idea how much of UK pension funds are invested in the US alone? Let alone all the other economies heavily dependent on the US.
This damages UK security and economy as well as that of the US, which was fairly obviously what the author was intending.
US democracy does itself no favours though.
Why does it take California over a month to count Presidential ballots as one example.
There would be no 'stop the count' calls if counts were done competently.
We went over all this in November, but to be fair i think there is a fair amount of rubbish talked about things like this, and US elections in general. There are many reasons why counts in the US take a long time, and whilst some of them are no doubt the consequence of poor administration, many are perfectly valid once one looks into the detail and the real reasons.
And some of them (no sniggering at the back) are actually because the US often aspires to a far higher degree of accuracy on the electoral counts (as opposed to just the electoral outcomes) than in most of the rest of the world. Whether often it is a spurious level of accuracy is another matter, but they are certainly motivated by the necessity to head off the possibility of any sort of legal challenge to results of the sort of that would be very rare in eg. the UK, where once the results are declared they are basically accepted as true and correct barring some glaring evidence to the contrary that comes to light subsequently.
Also that it takes time to count and certify votes is in large part because the system is designed to allow it. In almost every other country the time between election and outcome becoming reality is very short if not instantaneous. The victor in an election takes over in hours if not days. In the US there are lengthy periods built in - so naturally the electoral authorities take advantage of that. So why does California take a long time to count the votes (and contrary to perception they are far from alone in that, and arguably have more excuse given their size). The best answer is because they can. Maybe if in eg. the Presidential election the outcome of California was in doubt they might speed up a bit...
I think another thing that's good but makes them look bad, in combination with the long time taken to count, is that they're very open in releasing partial counts as the process is going on. In NY they had this madcap screw-up where they accidentally included a load of test ballots along with the real ballots, so the numbers they released were total garbage. They realized what they'd done long before they reached an official result, so it wouldn't have mattered if they'd done what the British do and kept the whole thing under wraps until they check everything over and announce the final scores.
The same thing was weaponized by the Rust Belt GOP legislatures when they got the postal votes counted last to produce a spurious early lead for Trump. They only got to game the incomplete results because they release incomplete results.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
If footballers taking the knee to oppose racism is political, so is them wearing shirts with poppies imprinted on them. I don't think either are.
Not at all
The poppy campaign is explicitly charitable.
“Taking the knee” is indelibly associated with Black Lives Matter which is a very political campaign.
You can’t adopt the symbols of a political campaign and claim you are nothing to do with it.
The question therefore is what the FA do about the racism infesting the stands. Kick it out isn't working. Taking the knee has the racists booing. If the team cannot be seen to stand up to the racists in the stands then how do we stamp it out?
Use a different symbol for a start - one not associated with a political “side”. Anti-racism is something the vast majority should be able to support but there is too much baggage associated with BLM.
The basic policy of isolating racists and banning them from matches seems a sensible one to me. But that’s going to take time. I’m sure that there are specific improvements to can be made to enhance the effectiveness of the policy but they key is to make sure that the vast bulk of fans treat the racists with the contempt they deserve. A good analogy is drunk driving: there are always some holdouts and idiots, but people of my generation are far more aware and careful than our parents.
Meh. Kick it out continues to make slow progress. That the racists want to write off BLM and the need to recognise that whites and non-whites are equal is not something that "I'm not a racist" people should be endorsing.
Take the knee is a cultural thing now. Own it. Embrace it. Fear of the alleged marxists who its support to represent are - as Douglas Adams put it so beautifully - the figments of a deranged imagination.
Marxism is not going to sweep the world thanks to take the knee gestures. Basic human decency might.
Except that the actual racists are a tiny minority of fans, no more than a handful in a stadium.
Meanwhile, telling all the not-racist fans that they’re actually racist, is understandably annoying them.
I don't see how taking the knee is supporting BLM any more than recycling is supporting Extinction Rebellion
The Swastika existed well before the Nazi co-oped it.
If you do anything green, you support destroying capitalism. That's the level of debate we're having here
As I say, where this all began, they have moved away from this exactly for the reason of its link to divisive organisation. NBA also initially went big on knee taking, BLM, overt racial justice statements, but now have moved away from this when they ticked over to a new season.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
If footballers taking the knee to oppose racism is political, so is them wearing shirts with poppies imprinted on them. I don't think either are.
Not at all
The poppy campaign is explicitly charitable.
“Taking the knee” is indelibly associated with Black Lives Matter which is a very political campaign.
You can’t adopt the symbols of a political campaign and claim you are nothing to do with it.
The question therefore is what the FA do about the racism infesting the stands. Kick it out isn't working. Taking the knee has the racists booing. If the team cannot be seen to stand up to the racists in the stands then how do we stamp it out?
Use a different symbol for a start - one not associated with a political “side”. Anti-racism is something the vast majority should be able to support but there is too much baggage associated with BLM.
The basic policy of isolating racists and banning them from matches seems a sensible one to me. But that’s going to take time. I’m sure that there are specific improvements to can be made to enhance the effectiveness of the policy but they key is to make sure that the vast bulk of fans treat the racists with the contempt they deserve. A good analogy is drunk driving: there are always some holdouts and idiots, but people of my generation are far more aware and careful than our parents.
I've been reading (or more accurately listening to on audiobook) a lot of Agatha Christie and Dorothy L Sayers books recently: the attitudes to drink-driving and to smoking are very different to today's.
There is also a fair bit of casual racism and an attitude to the lower classes that makes the current government look communist, but I was expecting that.
Also the attitude to, e.g. sex outside marriage.
Which I have always found amusing given that both had, ummmm, interesting sex lives...
Sayers is rather self consciously modern about that; here alter ego has lived in sin with her and offers to do the same with PW.
Sri Lanka looked good for 2 overs but we are back to normal now. Maybe the England players are keen to watch the second half of the grand prix.
There’s a nasty rumour going around Austria, that the second half of the Grand Prix might feature some rain...
Probably Hamilton's only hope. I thought his decision to go for 2 more years was an acknowledgement that he is not going to get his record of most championships this year and he is clearly not completely confident about next year either.
Actually rain delays are the biggest risk to an early bath at Bristol as well.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
If footballers taking the knee to oppose racism is political, so is them wearing shirts with poppies imprinted on them. I don't think either are.
Not at all
The poppy campaign is explicitly charitable.
“Taking the knee” is indelibly associated with Black Lives Matter which is a very political campaign.
You can’t adopt the symbols of a political campaign and claim you are nothing to do with it.
The question therefore is what the FA do about the racism infesting the stands. Kick it out isn't working. Taking the knee has the racists booing. If the team cannot be seen to stand up to the racists in the stands then how do we stamp it out?
Use a different symbol for a start - one not associated with a political “side”. Anti-racism is something the vast majority should be able to support but there is too much baggage associated with BLM.
The basic policy of isolating racists and banning them from matches seems a sensible one to me. But that’s going to take time. I’m sure that there are specific improvements to can be made to enhance the effectiveness of the policy but they key is to make sure that the vast bulk of fans treat the racists with the contempt they deserve. A good analogy is drunk driving: there are always some holdouts and idiots, but people of my generation are far more aware and careful than our parents.
Meh. Kick it out continues to make slow progress. That the racists want to write off BLM and the need to recognise that whites and non-whites are equal is not something that "I'm not a racist" people should be endorsing.
Take the knee is a cultural thing now. Own it. Embrace it. Fear of the alleged marxists who its support to represent are - as Douglas Adams put it so beautifully - the figments of a deranged imagination.
Marxism is not going to sweep the world thanks to take the knee gestures. Basic human decency might.
Except that the actual racists are a tiny minority of fans, no more than a handful in a stadium.
Meanwhile, telling all the not-racist fans that they’re actually racist, is understandably annoying them.
It's a very big focus of attention for any issue. Racism is hurtful (and worse, it is stupid), but so is war, hunger, rape, murder, child abuse, discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, etc.etc. If footballers had to adopt a different pose to protest every human ill there would be an hour long pilates session before anyone played any football.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
If footballers taking the knee to oppose racism is political, so is them wearing shirts with poppies imprinted on them. I don't think either are.
Not at all
The poppy campaign is explicitly charitable.
“Taking the knee” is indelibly associated with Black Lives Matter which is a very political campaign.
You can’t adopt the symbols of a political campaign and claim you are nothing to do with it.
The question therefore is what the FA do about the racism infesting the stands. Kick it out isn't working. Taking the knee has the racists booing. If the team cannot be seen to stand up to the racists in the stands then how do we stamp it out?
Use a different symbol for a start - one not associated with a political “side”. Anti-racism is something the vast majority should be able to support but there is too much baggage associated with BLM.
The basic policy of isolating racists and banning them from matches seems a sensible one to me. But that’s going to take time. I’m sure that there are specific improvements to can be made to enhance the effectiveness of the policy but they key is to make sure that the vast bulk of fans treat the racists with the contempt they deserve. A good analogy is drunk driving: there are always some holdouts and idiots, but people of my generation are far more aware and careful than our parents.
I've been reading (or more accurately listening to on audiobook) a lot of Agatha Christie and Dorothy L Sayers books recently: the attitudes to drink-driving and to smoking are very different to today's.
There is also a fair bit of casual racism and an attitude to the lower classes that makes the current government look communist, but I was expecting that.
Also the attitude to, e.g. sex outside marriage.
Which I have always found amusing given that both had, ummmm, interesting sex lives...
Sayers is rather self consciously modern about that; here alter ego has lived in sin with her and offers to do the same with PW.
With a, to say the least, acid reference to ex-boyfriend John Cournos thrown in:
‘Philip didn’t want love. He wanted devotion. I gave him that, I really did.’
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
If footballers taking the knee to oppose racism is political, so is them wearing shirts with poppies imprinted on them. I don't think either are.
Not at all
The poppy campaign is explicitly charitable.
“Taking the knee” is indelibly associated with Black Lives Matter which is a very political campaign.
You can’t adopt the symbols of a political campaign and claim you are nothing to do with it.
The question therefore is what the FA do about the racism infesting the stands. Kick it out isn't working. Taking the knee has the racists booing. If the team cannot be seen to stand up to the racists in the stands then how do we stamp it out?
Use a different symbol for a start - one not associated with a political “side”. Anti-racism is something the vast majority should be able to support but there is too much baggage associated with BLM.
The basic policy of isolating racists and banning them from matches seems a sensible one to me. But that’s going to take time. I’m sure that there are specific improvements to can be made to enhance the effectiveness of the policy but they key is to make sure that the vast bulk of fans treat the racists with the contempt they deserve. A good analogy is drunk driving: there are always some holdouts and idiots, but people of my generation are far more aware and careful than our parents.
I've been reading (or more accurately listening to on audiobook) a lot of Agatha Christie and Dorothy L Sayers books recently: the attitudes to drink-driving and to smoking are very different to today's.
There is also a fair bit of casual racism and an attitude to the lower classes that makes the current government look communist, but I was expecting that.
Also the attitude to, e.g. sex outside marriage.
Which I have always found amusing given that both had, ummmm, interesting sex lives...
In Sayers case the attitude is a bit more nuanced: Harriet Vane, who is the viewpoint character in a large chunk of the books was living with a man before we meet her and only left him when he proposed to her. This is an important plot point in Strong Poison (in which she is on trial for that man's murder) so I won't go into to many details for those who haven't read it.
On Christie's side I would agree: there is one book where an apparently unmarried couple turns out to be married: Miss Marple deduces this based on how much they argue with each other...
Sri Lanka looked good for 2 overs but we are back to normal now. Maybe the England players are keen to watch the second half of the grand prix.
There’s a nasty rumour going around Austria, that the second half of the Grand Prix might feature some rain...
Probably Hamilton's only hope. I thought his decision to go for 2 more years was an acknowledgement that he is not going to get his record of most championships this year and he is clearly not completely confident about next year either.
Actually rain delays are the biggest risk to an early bath at Bristol as well.
Well, that and the 80m other reasons.
Yes, for the first time in eight years, he’s got a real fight on his hands, and his car isn’t the fastest on the grid this year. At the moment, he’s hoping Max makes a mistake or suffers unreliability, what has marked out Lewis in recent years is astonishing consistency in scoring points, even on bad days.
I don't see how taking the knee is supporting BLM any more than recycling is supporting Extinction Rebellion
It isn't. What is "Black Lives Matter: The Organisation" anyway? If racists and their enablers want to write the whole thing off because they disagree with the politics of something that is largely unconnected with it then that says a lot about them.
On topic, presumably the GOP voter argument is that Biden was responsible because he "stole the election", and while the riots were perhaps regrettable it's time to move on from these "perfectly understandable expressions of outrage" and concentrate on the evils of the Democrats.
It has a certain insane logic, but it essentially means that they don't think the democratic process has worked. That's an extremely dangerous state of mind for even a third of the population to be in, and I can't think of any Western country that has had anything like it since WW2. Because if they don't think democracy works, they may start to think about what else they can do to get the "correct" result - anything from stocking up with guns to being ready to support a coup.
As I said at the time of the election, there was no harm to be done by subjecting the election result to unusual, even excessive rigour. It would have legitimised the result and silenced claims of a steal.
Sajid Javid's arrival seems to have coincided with a policy shift. It makes me think that Matt Hancock and his coterie of white coats held huge sway over Gov't policy. Javid and Sunak appear now to have shifted the weight towards 'learning to live with it' which is, frankly, brilliant news. The link between cases and deaths has been broken by the vaccines and we need to roll up our sleeves and get on with life. Banish fear. Live.
It does also show how incredibly weak Boris Johnson is. He gets pushed and pulled around, almost certainly in large part because he's lazy and doesn't have a grasp of the facts. I don't think he's as bright as he seems to think he is.
I've wondered if the opposite is true. If Boris had had enough of Hancock's loony lockdownism, but didn't want to have open war with the zero covidians by sacking him to change policy, what could be better than pushing him out over a scandal, and installing a less insane health secretary. It wouldn't shock me if Boris's people were behind that video ending up in the public domain, to give Boris some cover to bin him.
Boris could have fired him on the Friday - the fact he didn't destroys your argument
Possibly. Or possibly if he wanted him replacing but didn't want to be too implicated, he thought it easier to sit on his hands and await the inevitable.
Regardless if he wanted Hancock out or not, I'd be supprised if Johnson didn't have a conversation with Javid about what sort of lockdown / unlockdown approach he would pursue before offering him the job.
On topic, presumably the GOP voter argument is that Biden was responsible because he "stole the election", and while the riots were perhaps regrettable it's time to move on from these "perfectly understandable expressions of outrage" and concentrate on the evils of the Democrats.
It has a certain insane logic, but it essentially means that they don't think the democratic process has worked. That's an extremely dangerous state of mind for even a third of the population to be in, and I can't think of any Western country that has had anything like it since WW2. Because if they don't think democracy works, they may start to think about what else they can do to get the "correct" result - anything from stocking up with guns to being ready to support a coup.
As I said at the time of the election, there was no harm to be done by subjecting the election result to unusual, even excessive rigour. It would have legitimised the result and silenced claims of a steal.
I don't see how taking the knee is supporting BLM any more than recycling is supporting Extinction Rebellion
The Swastika existed well before the Nazi co-oped it.
If you do anything green, you support destroying capitalism. That's the level of debate we're having here
As I say, where this all began, they have moved away from this exactly for the reason of its link to divisive organisation. NBA also initially went big on knee taking, BLM, overt racial justice statements, but now have moved away from this when they ticked over to a new season.
Address the point on recycling please. You're avoiding it for some reason
Sri Lanka looked good for 2 overs but we are back to normal now. Maybe the England players are keen to watch the second half of the grand prix.
Given that England have already won the series, it would have been a noble gesture, having won the toss, for Morgan to choose to bat first rather than put Sri Lanka in. At least then the crowd (both those there and me on TV) might have enjoyed a reasonable amount of cricket. As it is, I'm inclined to turn it off already.
Forget “noble gesture”. The amount of time that England claim that their team selections and the like are all based on “building towards the next World Cup/Ashes” etc, the complete blind spot towards ever challenging themselves outside of their comfort zone by opting to bat first is a complete mystery. We all know that England are extremely good when chasing. They get hardly any practice in batting first and setting a total.
Sri Lanka are shit in the cricket aren't they.....
The days of Sangakarra and Jayawardene, let alone Murali and Malinga seem an increasingly long time ago. Its sad really, they used to bring a rare flair to the game.
I don't see how taking the knee is supporting BLM any more than recycling is supporting Extinction Rebellion
The Swastika existed well before the Nazi co-oped it.
If you do anything green, you support destroying capitalism. That's the level of debate we're having here
As I say, where this all began, they have moved away from this exactly for the reason of its link to divisive organisation. NBA also initially went big on knee taking, BLM, overt racial justice statements, but now have moved away from this when they ticked over to a new season.
Address the point on recycling please. You're avoiding it for some reason
Your the one claiming you don't see any connection between taking the knee and BLM. I am just saying that in the US, sports see it very differently and thus worked to move away from it / replace it. Inspire Change campaign in the NFL is totally uncontroversial.
Recycling / XR is irrelevant, for example we haven't had the leader of the opposition in his office saying I hearby recycle this can in support of XR. Taking the knee was performative gesture done by many to show exactly their support for the BLM movement and those in high profile roles unwilling to do so were questioned by the media repeatedly why they weren't / why didn't they support this movement. So you can see why lots of people still associate the two
This Diana statue with the random children. Did the sculptor misread the brief? If it was an order for a statue of Michael Jackson then perhaps add the kids.
I don't see how taking the knee is supporting BLM any more than recycling is supporting Extinction Rebellion
The Swastika existed well before the Nazi co-oped it.
If you do anything green, you support destroying capitalism. That's the level of debate we're having here
As I say, where this all began, they have moved away from this exactly for the reason of its link to divisive organisation. NBA also initially went big on knee taking, BLM, overt racial justice statements, but now have moved away from this when they ticked over to a new season.
Address the point on recycling please. You're avoiding it for some reason
Your the one claiming you don't see any connection between taking the knee and BLM. I am just saying that in the US, sports see it very differently and thus worked to move away from it / replace it. Inspire Change campaign in the NFL is totally uncontroversial.
Recycling / XR is irrelevant, we haven't had the leader of the opposition in his office saying I hearby recycle this can in support of XR.
It isn't irrelevant at all, it just undermines your point hence why you won't address it.
People take the knee, they did it long before BLM. You implied taking the knee is supporting BLM.
People recycle, they did it long before Extinction Rebellion. By your logic recycling is supporting Extinction Rebellion.
Both are equally absurd. But in an attempt to score pointless political points you're avoiding it.
According to the Metro, this uniform has been called "misogynistic" - I'm not sure who by. The North Korean skipping march (performed by both sexes in normal boots) is misanthropic.
I presume that for the actual parade they will be marching in dress uniform, probably skirts for the ladies, and will be wearing heels with them. So they are practising marching in heels. Quite reasonably. No, they aren't expected to fight the Russian occupier in them. Just as we don't expect the household cavalry to drive tanks in cuirass and riding boots
I get the feeling that they should have thought about this first, rather than let some noisy people crank up the outrage bus.
I did enjoy the hyperbole in the shoes displayed in the Ukranian Parliament.
On topic, presumably the GOP voter argument is that Biden was responsible because he "stole the election", and while the riots were perhaps regrettable it's time to move on from these "perfectly understandable expressions of outrage" and concentrate on the evils of the Democrats.
It has a certain insane logic, but it essentially means that they don't think the democratic process has worked. That's an extremely dangerous state of mind for even a third of the population to be in, and I can't think of any Western country that has had anything like it since WW2. Because if they don't think democracy works, they may start to think about what else they can do to get the "correct" result - anything from stocking up with guns to being ready to support a coup.
As I said at the time of the election, there was no harm to be done by subjecting the election result to unusual, even excessive rigour. It would have legitimised the result and silenced claims of a steal.
It was and it didn't.
I don't think it was. There was a highly adversarial legal process, where claims were made and as far as I recall, thrown out wholesale. The Sydney Powell lawsuit had a big dose of farce, but a few of the claims had some validity and could and should have been checked. Of course this is just as much the Republican/Trump administration's fault as it is the Democrats'. However, those who said at the time (as some did here) that extra investigations were a bad idea because they were an insult to democracy and opened the floodgates, were simply wrong. What the lack of rigour has actually achieved is what it was designed to prevent. You are a physics teacher (right?). There is no harm that can come from dispassionate investigation of the facts.
I wonder if we should compare Starmer more with Cameron's route to number 10, than Blair's.
I recall Brown was rather popular during the GFC - and then three years later Cameron won over 100 seats.
Yes and no.
It is something I'm doing a piece on.
Fun fact, during the 2005 - 2010 parliament, Labour's last led in the opinion polls in January 2008, long before the GFC.
Brown's popularity was in the summer of 2007 when he replaced Blair, then fannied about with the election that never was, allowing Dave and George to change the narrative with the IHT cut at the Tory conference in 2007.
Labour were so arrogant, Labour MPs were so arrogant that they were writing pieces in September 2007 saying
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
If footballers taking the knee to oppose racism is political, so is them wearing shirts with poppies imprinted on them. I don't think either are.
Not at all
The poppy campaign is explicitly charitable.
“Taking the knee” is indelibly associated with Black Lives Matter which is a very political campaign.
You can’t adopt the symbols of a political campaign and claim you are nothing to do with it.
The question therefore is what the FA do about the racism infesting the stands. Kick it out isn't working. Taking the knee has the racists booing. If the team cannot be seen to stand up to the racists in the stands then how do we stamp it out?
Use a different symbol for a start - one not associated with a political “side”. Anti-racism is something the vast majority should be able to support but there is too much baggage associated with BLM.
The basic policy of isolating racists and banning them from matches seems a sensible one to me. But that’s going to take time. I’m sure that there are specific improvements to can be made to enhance the effectiveness of the policy but they key is to make sure that the vast bulk of fans treat the racists with the contempt they deserve. A good analogy is drunk driving: there are always some holdouts and idiots, but people of my generation are far more aware and careful than our parents.
Meh. Kick it out continues to make slow progress. That the racists want to write off BLM and the need to recognise that whites and non-whites are equal is not something that "I'm not a racist" people should be endorsing.
Take the knee is a cultural thing now. Own it. Embrace it. Fear of the alleged marxists who its support to represent are - as Douglas Adams put it so beautifully - the figments of a deranged imagination.
Marxism is not going to sweep the world thanks to take the knee gestures. Basic human decency might.
BLM explicitly doesn’t advocate equality - they want reparations and supremacy. That’s exactly the problem.
Discrimination is discrimination regardless of whether it is reverse or otherwise.
Spend your time and energy on removing roadblocks to people achieving their individual potential
I don't see how taking the knee is supporting BLM any more than recycling is supporting Extinction Rebellion
The Swastika existed well before the Nazi co-oped it.
If you do anything green, you support destroying capitalism. That's the level of debate we're having here
As I say, where this all began, they have moved away from this exactly for the reason of its link to divisive organisation. NBA also initially went big on knee taking, BLM, overt racial justice statements, but now have moved away from this when they ticked over to a new season.
Address the point on recycling please. You're avoiding it for some reason
Your the one claiming you don't see any connection between taking the knee and BLM. I am just saying that in the US, sports see it very differently and thus worked to move away from it / replace it. Inspire Change campaign in the NFL is totally uncontroversial.
Recycling / XR is irrelevant, we haven't had the leader of the opposition in his office saying I hearby recycle this can in support of XR.
It isn't irrelevant at all, it just undermines your point hence why you won't address it.
People take the knee, they did it long before BLM. You implied taking the knee is supporting BLM.
People recycle, they did it long before Extinction Rebellion. By your logic recycling is supporting Extinction Rebellion.
Both are equally absurd. But in an attempt to score pointless political points you're avoiding it.
They didn’t take the knee in England before the BLM demos of last summer. The Edward Coulston statue was toppled on June 7th, the knee taking at football matches started on the 17th, so you can see why people think they are related
I wonder if we should compare Starmer more with Cameron's route to number 10, than Blair's.
I recall Brown was rather popular during the GFC - and then three years later Cameron won over 100 seats.
Yes and no.
It is something I'm doing a piece on.
Fun fact, during the 2005 - 2010 parliament, Labour's last led in the opinion polls in January 2008, long before the GFC.
Brown's popularity was in the summer of 2007 when he replaced Blair, then fannied about with the election that never was, allowing Dave and George to change the narrative with the IHT cut at the Tory conference in 2007.
Labour were so arrogant, Labour MPs were so arrogant that they were writing pieces in September 2007 saying
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
My point TSE, was that I recall - I may be wrong - that Cameron's ratings were also in the gutter and yet he was able to recover and win. A combination of Brown becoming unpopular, boredom of Labour and Cameron being liked.
These are all things that could conceivably happen to Starmer.
I don't see how taking the knee is supporting BLM any more than recycling is supporting Extinction Rebellion
The Swastika existed well before the Nazi co-oped it.
If you do anything green, you support destroying capitalism. That's the level of debate we're having here
As I say, where this all began, they have moved away from this exactly for the reason of its link to divisive organisation. NBA also initially went big on knee taking, BLM, overt racial justice statements, but now have moved away from this when they ticked over to a new season.
Address the point on recycling please. You're avoiding it for some reason
Your the one claiming you don't see any connection between taking the knee and BLM. I am just saying that in the US, sports see it very differently and thus worked to move away from it / replace it. Inspire Change campaign in the NFL is totally uncontroversial.
Recycling / XR is irrelevant, we haven't had the leader of the opposition in his office saying I hearby recycle this can in support of XR.
It isn't irrelevant at all, it just undermines your point hence why you won't address it.
People take the knee, they did it long before BLM. You implied taking the knee is supporting BLM.
People recycle, they did it long before Extinction Rebellion. By your logic recycling is supporting Extinction Rebellion.
Both are equally absurd. But in an attempt to score pointless political points you're avoiding it.
They didn’t take the knee in England before the BLM demos of last summer. The Edward Coulston statue was toppled on June 7th, the knee taking at football matches started on the 17th, so you can see why people think they are related
Well and when leading public individuals explicitly said they were doing this to show support for this movement e.g.
You can see why the public might make the "wrong" inference. Kind of like Germans don't sing the first verse of the national athem anymore, despite it having been about for ages before the infamous Nazi Olympics.
And as CHB won't entertain, in the US, it is now absolutely linked to BLM, so much so, sports have done everything they can to move away from it as it is so divisive.
'persons of pigment' 'the hell or high altar of wokenesss'
Does Lozza write his own songs? Watch out, Cole Porter.
He’s really quite tedious with this Schtick.
It’s like those objecting to the Covid restrictions - there’s a legitimate point to be made, but too many of the advocates are being utter morons about it.
On topic, presumably the GOP voter argument is that Biden was responsible because he "stole the election", and while the riots were perhaps regrettable it's time to move on from these "perfectly understandable expressions of outrage" and concentrate on the evils of the Democrats.
It has a certain insane logic, but it essentially means that they don't think the democratic process has worked. That's an extremely dangerous state of mind for even a third of the population to be in, and I can't think of any Western country that has had anything like it since WW2. Because if they don't think democracy works, they may start to think about what else they can do to get the "correct" result - anything from stocking up with guns to being ready to support a coup.
As I said at the time of the election, there was no harm to be done by subjecting the election result to unusual, even excessive rigour. It would have legitimised the result and silenced claims of a steal.
It was and it didn't.
I don't think it was. There was a highly adversarial legal process, where claims were made and as far as I recall, thrown out wholesale. The Sydney Powell lawsuit had a big dose of farce, but a few of the claims had some validity and could and should have been checked. Of course this is just as much the Republican/Trump administration's fault as it is the Democrats'. However, those who said at the time (as some did here) that extra investigations were a bad idea because they were an insult to democracy and opened the floodgates, were simply wrong. What the lack of rigour has actually achieved is what it was designed to prevent. You are a physics teacher (right?). There is no harm that can come from dispassionate investigation of the facts.
The Georgia results were recounted and seperatly hand verified.
Biden won every time.
They had the highest possible level of rigour applied.
That still didn't stop accusations that Trump won Georgia.
The vile depredations of Covid have forced me into further squalor
Is there no end to the suffering
Vicious. Are they really expecting you to cope without some raspberry jam for your roll?
With wine? I'm left trying to work out if that is Leon's breakfast, elevenses, lunch, afternoon tea or dinner.
Personally I would expect a high quality hostelry to invest in a slightly nicer grade of bread roll, but I am sure the view is more than adequate compensation.
Comments
Prof. Christina Pagel
@chrischirp
·
2h
There is nothing very promising about the covid data.
We're about three quarters of the way through the vaccine programme and they're giving up - let the rest just get it.
Dangerous and wrong in my view.
Football clubs and players would be better off with a long-running social media boycott, if that’s where the abuse is now coming from. Put pressure on Twitter and Facebook, to kick racist abusers off their platforms.
1.72 is a 58% chance. If you believe it is e.g. 1.25 i.e. an 80% chance you are looking at an expected 22% gain on a stake but losing 20% of you stake in opportunity cost. As it happens, I think the chance is greater than 80% but the return is much reduced. [I hope I've got the arithmetic right here].
In general, for this reason, I avoid all long term bets (longer than a year).
Let's hope it works. I read on here that we have now got the IFR down to that for seasonal flu, and we don't mitigate against that.
McClean didn’t wear a poppy, his club respected that, and he published a letter explaining why
After that it will only be people who have changed their mind, some women who have just given birth and those who have reached their 18th birthday.
Second doses follow at the appropriate time.
It has a certain insane logic, but it essentially means that they don't think the democratic process has worked. That's an extremely dangerous state of mind for even a third of the population to be in, and I can't think of any Western country that has had anything like it since WW2. Because if they don't think democracy works, they may start to think about what else they can do to get the "correct" result - anything from stocking up with guns to being ready to support a coup.
Football either goes after the racists head on or England end up a pariah as teams with overtly racist supports have elsewhere. That the likes of Patel provide succour to the racists because she knows the racists are now voting Tory is just desperately sad.
At which point I ought to get my coat, or at least go and do the post-breakfast washing up.
It’s just keeping everyone locked up for ever to eliminate Covid entirely is not a sensible view, which is why Javid, thank God, is ignoring you.
And that Trump was more chaotic than competent in his malignancy.
The basic policy of isolating racists and banning them from matches seems a sensible one to me. But that’s going to take time. I’m sure that there are specific improvements to can be made to enhance the effectiveness of the policy but they key is to make sure that the vast bulk of fans treat the racists with the contempt they deserve. A good analogy is drunk driving: there are always some holdouts and idiots, but people of my generation are far more aware and careful than our parents.
One of the grim ironies of recent events is that the Trumpian voter suppression techniques were actually largely borrowed from Democratic practices in the Jim Crow era.
And actually targeted much the same voters.
Covid-19: Masks will become personal choice, says Robert Jenrick
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57710527
If they’re getting rid of masks, surely the rest will go too?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/oct/06/realitytv.broadcasting
Take the knee is a cultural thing now. Own it. Embrace it. Fear of the alleged marxists who its support to represent are - as Douglas Adams put it so beautifully - the figments of a deranged imagination.
Marxism is not going to sweep the world thanks to take the knee gestures. Basic human decency might.
But that the gesture is *associated with* that agenda.
To go all Godwin on you… it’s like claiming the old Roman greeting, straightening the right arm, can be divorced from its Nazi associations.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/how-stay-healthy-midlife-tips-advice-how-much-alcohol-coffee/
Does incessant posting on PB count?
I don't see how taking the knee is supporting BLM any more than recycling is supporting Extinction Rebellion
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jul/04/in-the-dock-bristol-wild-swimmers-flout-harbour-ban-in-fight-for-city-lido
Just trying to work out which identity SeanT is posting under today is exhausting.
There is also a fair bit of casual racism and an attitude to the lower classes that makes the current government look communist, but I was expecting that.
In the NFL (where it started to be used as a protest statement), they have moved away from this gesture for exactly this reason. A few players continue to do it, but it is a tiny minority. Instead there is a collective arm in arm gesture and an Inspire Change campaign.
Which I have always found amusing given that both had, ummmm, interesting sex lives...
The same thing was weaponized by the Rust Belt GOP legislatures when they got the postal votes counted last to produce a spurious early lead for Trump. They only got to game the incomplete results because they release incomplete results.
Meanwhile, telling all the not-racist fans that they’re actually racist, is understandably annoying them.
Actually rain delays are the biggest risk to an early bath at Bristol as well.
‘Philip didn’t want love. He wanted devotion. I gave him that, I really did.’
This is an important plot point in Strong Poison (in which she is on trial for that man's murder) so I won't go into to many details for those who haven't read it.
On Christie's side I would agree: there is one book where an apparently unmarried couple turns out to be married: Miss Marple deduces this based on how much they argue with each other...
Yes, for the first time in eight years, he’s got a real fight on his hands, and his car isn’t the fastest on the grid this year. At the moment, he’s hoping Max makes a mistake or suffers unreliability, what has marked out Lewis in recent years is astonishing consistency in scoring points, even on bad days.
Regardless if he wanted Hancock out or not, I'd be supprised if Johnson didn't have a conversation with Javid about what sort of lockdown / unlockdown approach he would pursue before offering him the job.
Is there no end to the suffering
Recycling / XR is irrelevant, for example we haven't had the leader of the opposition in his office saying I hearby recycle this can in support of XR. Taking the knee was performative gesture done by many to show exactly their support for the BLM movement and those in high profile roles unwilling to do so were questioned by the media repeatedly why they weren't / why didn't they support this movement. So you can see why lots of people still associate the two
I will say it again - they should have abandoned restrictions a fortnight ago simply because they are rapidly becoming unenforceable anyway.
I recall Brown was rather popular during the GFC - and then three years later Cameron won over 100 seats.
But you know what? They’re not going to grind me down. I’m an Englishman. Cry god for Harry Kane, etc
People take the knee, they did it long before BLM. You implied taking the knee is supporting BLM.
People recycle, they did it long before Extinction Rebellion. By your logic recycling is supporting Extinction Rebellion.
Both are equally absurd. But in an attempt to score pointless political points you're avoiding it.
'the hell or high altar of wokenesss'
Does Lozza write his own songs? Watch out, Cole Porter.
I did enjoy the hyperbole in the shoes displayed in the Ukranian Parliament.
I suppose it may have a bit of Omar Khayyam about it but you've been able to have the same for the last thirty years in Barnsley.
It is something I'm doing a piece on.
Fun fact, during the 2005 - 2010 parliament, Labour's last led in the opinion polls in January 2008, long before the GFC.
Brown's popularity was in the summer of 2007 when he replaced Blair, then fannied about with the election that never was, allowing Dave and George to change the narrative with the IHT cut at the Tory conference in 2007.
Labour were so arrogant, Labour MPs were so arrogant that they were writing pieces in September 2007 saying
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase
Discrimination is discrimination regardless of whether it is reverse or otherwise.
Spend your time and energy on removing roadblocks to people achieving their individual potential
These are all things that could conceivably happen to Starmer.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/george-floyd-death-labour-leader-sir-keir-starmer-takes-a-knee-in-support-of-black-lives-matter-movement-12003611
You can see why the public might make the "wrong" inference. Kind of like Germans don't sing the first verse of the national athem anymore, despite it having been about for ages before the infamous Nazi Olympics.
And as CHB won't entertain, in the US, it is now absolutely linked to BLM, so much so, sports have done everything they can to move away from it as it is so divisive.
Biden won every time.
They had the highest possible level of rigour applied.
That still didn't stop accusations that Trump won Georgia.
Edit. I see it was sent before the match - must have been pre-fuelling.