Prediction - there will be violence tonight, that’s obvious
The combo of an England final, Wembley, plus a year of plague and lockdown, makes it inevitable. I can hear chants and singing in Camden already. People want to partayyy
However, if England win the violence will be glossed over. Expect terms like ‘boyish horseplay’, ‘a few arrests’, ‘high spirits’, and so forth. If England lose, there might be a couple of stabbings, there will definitely be an orgy of Guardian think-pieces about ‘the ugly side of Englishness’.
Prediction - there will be violence tonight, that’s obvious
The combo of an England final, Wembley, plus a year of plague and lockdown, makes it inevitable. I can hear chants and singing in Camden already. People want to partayyy
However, if England win the violence will be glossed over. Expect terms like ‘boyish horseplay’, ‘a few arrests’, ‘high spirits’, and so forth. If England lose, there might be a couple of stabbings, there will definitely be an orgy of Guardian think-pieces about ‘the ugly side of Englishness’.
Not everyone is looking forward to the match tonight... Instances of domestic abuse increase 26% when England play and 38% if they lose.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
That sounds awful. Surely it is International Law that ships have to search for survivors etc?
The new law makes it an offence to "knowingly facilitate the arrival or attempted arrival in, or the attempted entry into, the United Kingdom" if you know or have reasonable cause to believe that the person is an asylum seeker.
Suspect that international law does mandate such a rescue. Basic human decency certainly does. And they getting your collar felt back on shore for "facilitating" their "arrival" by refusing to let them drown.
Ah well. Whither the country that rescued Jewish children fleeing the Nazis.
...also the Ugandan Asians....pull the ladder up Priti!
Did they enter illegally?
...who says boat migrants are illegal?
If you were a legal migrant, why on earth would you run the gamut of the channel in an unseaworthy boat with no navigation or propulsion? do you know how dangerous that is? ever been in the channel at night?
Say you were at the top of an 80ft block of flats and wanted to exit. Would you take the stairs/lift, or jump off?
@Big_G_NorthWales is correct that rescue organizations (and those who volunteer for them) will not in reality be prosecuted
That doesn't mean it's not a bad law. And by "bad", I don't mean it's intentions (stopping migrants illegally entering the country via small boats across the channel) are in some way wrong, I mean it is poorly drafted, and therefore inadvertantly criminalizes a lot of behavior.
Like with contracts, it's better to make sure the wording is in line with intentions, before they do into force.
Prediction - there will be violence tonight, that’s obvious
The combo of an England final, Wembley, plus a year of plague and lockdown, makes it inevitable. I can hear chants and singing in Camden already. People want to partayyy
However, if England win the violence will be glossed over. Expect terms like ‘boyish horseplay’, ‘a few arrests’, ‘high spirits’, and so forth. If England lose, there might be a couple of stabbings, there will definitely be an orgy of Guardian think-pieces about ‘the ugly side of Englishness’.
It's young men and alcohol, happens everywhere the two mix in large quantities, and tonight it's all the young men at the same time with even more alcohol than normal.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
That sounds awful. Surely it is International Law that ships have to search for survivors etc?
The new law makes it an offence to "knowingly facilitate the arrival or attempted arrival in, or the attempted entry into, the United Kingdom" if you know or have reasonable cause to believe that the person is an asylum seeker.
Suspect that international law does mandate such a rescue. Basic human decency certainly does. And they getting your collar felt back on shore for "facilitating" their "arrival" by refusing to let them drown.
Ah well. Whither the country that rescued Jewish children fleeing the Nazis.
...also the Ugandan Asians....pull the ladder up Priti!
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
That sounds awful. Surely it is International Law that ships have to search for survivors etc?
The new law makes it an offence to "knowingly facilitate the arrival or attempted arrival in, or the attempted entry into, the United Kingdom" if you know or have reasonable cause to believe that the person is an asylum seeker.
Suspect that international law does mandate such a rescue. Basic human decency certainly does. And they getting your collar felt back on shore for "facilitating" their "arrival" by refusing to let them drown.
Ah well. Whither the country that rescued Jewish children fleeing the Nazis.
...also the Ugandan Asians....pull the ladder up Priti!
Did they enter illegally?
...who says boat migrants are illegal?
How many have valid Visas?
how many are asylum seekers?
Why? Is France an unsafe country?
It’s led by Emmanuel Macron and is full of French people.
Someone should tell these "asylum seekers" that Blighty is led by Boris Johnson and is full of Tories...
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
My son has just joined the RNLI and if you think they are going to let anyone drown then you are totally out of order and de facto attacking the RNLI service
My son will put his life on line to save life at sea and your political hatred disgusts me
Have a look at this if you have access - the RNLI are not happy.
The idea the RNLI will not rescue those in peril on the sea is a narrative so absurd it is nonsense
Please show me where the Home Secretary has said the RNLI will not save lives in the Channel or anywhere else
PS I am a RNLI supporter too!
In view of our connections with the sea going back generations we have always been supporters of the RNLI and my son joining the service has given us great pride
As it should! He and all the volunteers are bigger and better than most of us. All the more reason why you should be outraged by this bill.
Why not calm down, breathe, and read it. Then read what the RNLI say about it. Read what immigration lawyers are saying about it. The bill is clear and unambiguous in its explicit lack of protections for your son and his colleagues.
Right now you are ranting hysterically insisting that it isn't true because it can't be true because Boris is wonderful.
Read. The. Bill. You buffoon.
You lost me with buffoon
And nothing to do with Boris but someone has to stop these perilous journeys
I am certain nobody on here believes HMG will outlaw sea rescue and if the bill needs rewording then that will happen
It is a massively obvious gap in the legislation.
So HMG are hugely incompetent. Nobody can be that incompetent. Can they?
THis raises two issues.
Insurance. When I sometimes did an outdoor activity voluntarily, we had insurance to cover liability for the association/group in questtion and its leaders. For instance if someone broke a leg and their insurers sued us. On one occasion, one group organizer tried to do without and tried to bounce us by volunteering us as leaders. He was furious when we refused and he had to replan.
Now that was civil liability. Not criminal. Which this will be.
And in practice. How do you tell a rubber boatload of people in mid-Channel from another boatload? Posh yachtie accents? Tough if they are not upper class. Brown skins? They might be from Malmesbury. Check their passports?
"Thank you, please go to that seat and strap in." ... "No, no good, sorry chum, back in you go".
And all that in the dark, in pourting rain and a Force 6 and higher?
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
That sounds awful. Surely it is International Law that ships have to search for survivors etc?
The new law makes it an offence to "knowingly facilitate the arrival or attempted arrival in, or the attempted entry into, the United Kingdom" if you know or have reasonable cause to believe that the person is an asylum seeker.
Suspect that international law does mandate such a rescue. Basic human decency certainly does. And they getting your collar felt back on shore for "facilitating" their "arrival" by refusing to let them drown.
Ah well. Whither the country that rescued Jewish children fleeing the Nazis.
...also the Ugandan Asians....pull the ladder up Priti!
Did they enter illegally?
...who says boat migrants are illegal?
If you were a legal migrant, why on earth would you run the gamut of the channel in an unseaworthy boat with no navigation or propulsion? do you know how dangerous that is? ever been in the channel at night?
Say you were at the top of an 80ft block of flats and wanted to exit. Would you take the stairs/lift, or jump off?
FFS
it depends whether the lifts and fire exits have been locked or not doesn't it, if you want to use this analogy, especially if you don't speak the language of the flat dwellers, but do speak the language of the people outside and more importantly have relations in the crowd below.
don't swear at me either. We aren't all boris fanboys you know.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
That sounds awful. Surely it is International Law that ships have to search for survivors etc?
The new law makes it an offence to "knowingly facilitate the arrival or attempted arrival in, or the attempted entry into, the United Kingdom" if you know or have reasonable cause to believe that the person is an asylum seeker.
Suspect that international law does mandate such a rescue. Basic human decency certainly does. And they getting your collar felt back on shore for "facilitating" their "arrival" by refusing to let them drown.
Ah well. Whither the country that rescued Jewish children fleeing the Nazis.
...also the Ugandan Asians....pull the ladder up Priti!
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
That sounds awful. Surely it is International Law that ships have to search for survivors etc?
The new law makes it an offence to "knowingly facilitate the arrival or attempted arrival in, or the attempted entry into, the United Kingdom" if you know or have reasonable cause to believe that the person is an asylum seeker.
Suspect that international law does mandate such a rescue. Basic human decency certainly does. And they getting your collar felt back on shore for "facilitating" their "arrival" by refusing to let them drown.
Ah well. Whither the country that rescued Jewish children fleeing the Nazis.
...also the Ugandan Asians....pull the ladder up Priti!
Did they enter illegally?
...who says boat migrants are illegal?
How many have valid Visas?
how many are asylum seekers?
Around a third of asylum applications are successful, and another third accepted on appeal, so yes, asylum seeking is a legal pursuit.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
That sounds awful. Surely it is International Law that ships have to search for survivors etc?
The new law makes it an offence to "knowingly facilitate the arrival or attempted arrival in, or the attempted entry into, the United Kingdom" if you know or have reasonable cause to believe that the person is an asylum seeker.
Suspect that international law does mandate such a rescue. Basic human decency certainly does. And they getting your collar felt back on shore for "facilitating" their "arrival" by refusing to let them drown.
Ah well. Whither the country that rescued Jewish children fleeing the Nazis.
...also the Ugandan Asians....pull the ladder up Priti!
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
That sounds awful. Surely it is International Law that ships have to search for survivors etc?
The new law makes it an offence to "knowingly facilitate the arrival or attempted arrival in, or the attempted entry into, the United Kingdom" if you know or have reasonable cause to believe that the person is an asylum seeker.
Suspect that international law does mandate such a rescue. Basic human decency certainly does. And they getting your collar felt back on shore for "facilitating" their "arrival" by refusing to let them drown.
Ah well. Whither the country that rescued Jewish children fleeing the Nazis.
...also the Ugandan Asians....pull the ladder up Priti!
Did they enter illegally?
...who says boat migrants are illegal?
How many have valid Visas?
how many are asylum seekers?
Around a third of asylum applications are successful, and another third accepted on appeal, so yes, asylum seeking is a legal pursuit.
@Big_G_NorthWales is correct that rescue organizations (and those who volunteer for them) will not in reality be prosecuted
That doesn't mean it's not a bad law. And by "bad", I don't mean it's intentions (stopping migrants illegally entering the country via small boats across the channel) are in some way wrong, I mean it is poorly drafted, and therefore inadvertantly criminalizes a lot of behavior.
Like with contracts, it's better to make sure the wording is in line with intentions, before they do into force.
How would an insurance company view insuring the RNLI in the current wording of the bill, do you think?
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
That sounds awful. Surely it is International Law that ships have to search for survivors etc?
The new law makes it an offence to "knowingly facilitate the arrival or attempted arrival in, or the attempted entry into, the United Kingdom" if you know or have reasonable cause to believe that the person is an asylum seeker.
Suspect that international law does mandate such a rescue. Basic human decency certainly does. And they getting your collar felt back on shore for "facilitating" their "arrival" by refusing to let them drown.
Ah well. Whither the country that rescued Jewish children fleeing the Nazis.
...also the Ugandan Asians....pull the ladder up Priti!
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
That sounds awful. Surely it is International Law that ships have to search for survivors etc?
The new law makes it an offence to "knowingly facilitate the arrival or attempted arrival in, or the attempted entry into, the United Kingdom" if you know or have reasonable cause to believe that the person is an asylum seeker.
Suspect that international law does mandate such a rescue. Basic human decency certainly does. And they getting your collar felt back on shore for "facilitating" their "arrival" by refusing to let them drown.
Ah well. Whither the country that rescued Jewish children fleeing the Nazis.
...also the Ugandan Asians....pull the ladder up Priti!
Did they enter illegally?
...who says boat migrants are illegal?
How many have valid Visas?
how many are asylum seekers?
Why? Is France an unsafe country?
It’s led by Emmanuel Macron and is full of French people.
Someone should tell these "asylum seekers" that Blighty is led by Boris Johnson and is full of Tories...
44% isn’t full.
And I actually think Macron is worse than Johnson, and that’s not said out of starry-eyed admiration for A Johnson. They’re both empty populists out for themselves and their mates, but Macron’s charm and smoothness mean people are less wary of him.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
My son has just joined the RNLI and if you think they are going to let anyone drown then you are totally out of order and de facto attacking the RNLI service
My son will put his life on line to save life at sea and your political hatred disgusts me
Have a look at this if you have access - the RNLI are not happy.
The idea the RNLI will not rescue those in peril on the sea is a narrative so absurd it is nonsense
Please show me where the Home Secretary has said the RNLI will not save lives in the Channel or anywhere else
PS I am a RNLI supporter too!
In view of our connections with the sea going back generations we have always been supporters of the RNLI and my son joining the service has given us great pride
As it should! He and all the volunteers are bigger and better than most of us. All the more reason why you should be outraged by this bill.
Why not calm down, breathe, and read it. Then read what the RNLI say about it. Read what immigration lawyers are saying about it. The bill is clear and unambiguous in its explicit lack of protections for your son and his colleagues.
Right now you are ranting hysterically insisting that it isn't true because it can't be true because Boris is wonderful.
Read. The. Bill. You buffoon.
You lost me with buffoon
And nothing to do with Boris but someone has to stop these perilous journeys
I am certain nobody on here believes HMG will outlaw sea rescue and if the bill needs rewording then that will happen
It is a massively obvious gap in the legislation.
So HMG are hugely incompetent. Nobody can be that incompetent. Can they?
THis raises two issues.
Insurance. When I sometimes did an outdoor activity voluntarily, we had insurance to cover liability for the association/group in questtion and its leaders. For instance if someone broke a leg and their insurers sued us. On one occasion, one group organizer tried to do without and tried to bounce us by volunteering us as leaders. He was furious when we refused and he had to replan.
Now that was civil liability. Not criminal. Which this will be.
And in practice. How do you tell a rubber boatload of people in mid-Channel from another boatload? Posh yachtie accents? Tough if they are not upper class. Brown skins? They might be from Malmesbury. Check their passports?
"Thank you, please go to that seat and strap in." ... "No, no good, sorry chum, back in you go".
And all that in the dark, in pourting rain and a Force 6 and higher?
To be fair I was angry that @RochdalePioneers was suggesting the RNLI would stand off and watch a child drown in front of them
As @rcs1000 confirms in reality this will not happen and the drafting may need amending
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
My son has just joined the RNLI and if you think they are going to let anyone drown then you are totally out of order and de facto attacking the RNLI service
My son will put his life on line to save life at sea and your political hatred disgusts me
Have a look at this if you have access - the RNLI are not happy.
The idea the RNLI will not rescue those in peril on the sea is a narrative so absurd it is nonsense
Please show me where the Home Secretary has said the RNLI will not save lives in the Channel or anywhere else
PS I am a RNLI supporter too!
In view of our connections with the sea going back generations we have always been supporters of the RNLI and my son joining the service has given us great pride
As it should! He and all the volunteers are bigger and better than most of us. All the more reason why you should be outraged by this bill.
Why not calm down, breathe, and read it. Then read what the RNLI say about it. Read what immigration lawyers are saying about it. The bill is clear and unambiguous in its explicit lack of protections for your son and his colleagues.
Right now you are ranting hysterically insisting that it isn't true because it can't be true because Boris is wonderful.
Read. The. Bill. You buffoon.
You lost me with buffoon
And nothing to do with Boris but someone has to stop these perilous journeys
I am certain nobody on here believes HMG will outlaw sea rescue and if the bill needs rewording then that will happen
"If the bill needs rewording". You tell me, it's your son facing jail.
And when it gets amended? The opposition will condemn the bill. The opposition will propose an amendment so your son doesn't go to jail. Tory MPs, their pliant press and PB Clown Apologists like you will condemn them as being soft on migration
Don't forget that people have been propagandised against asylum seekers for so long that they believe the people your son would rescue from drowning are here to both take the jobs and sponge off benefits...
I'd like to set outside the actual immigrants for a moment, and consider the real criminals in this: the people who take money from the immigrants, then put them into unsuitable craft, often uncrewed, for journeys that kill many of them.
We need to really tackle the people smugglers, and that needs international action as their actions are international. Yet not much appears to be being done.
Personally, I'd like to cut the b******d's balls off, then throw them into the waters where they have committed so many innocents.
Nationally, we can strike at the modern slavers who take advantage of so many immigrants. A lifetime of indentured servitude washing cars or working in male brothels should be a suitable sentence for them...
As there's nothing of any import happening this evening, there'll no doubt be plenty of time and consideration for both the Moldovan and Bulgarian elections - or perhaps not.
Not long back from Westfield where today's fashion is the "Three Lions" shirt (it would seem). I have to say huge kudos to Yo! Sushi who have used Covid to revolutionise the dining experience and it's so much better.
I remain a huge fan of the Katsu curry and the Japanese Fried Chicken.
Some gaps higher up and at the back of the shopping "centre" but needless to say many of the big names were still doing well enough.
My bet on Djokovic winning 3-0 in sets was a right loser - whether Berrettini has the temperament to take the match to a final set I don't know but he's given it a good go.
It was good to see the English Derby and Oaks winners win so well overnight - the fact it was the Belmont Oaks and Belmont Derby they won shouldn't be sniffed at (nor indeed the combined winning pots of £660k).
@Big_G_NorthWales is correct that rescue organizations (and those who volunteer for them) will not in reality be prosecuted
That doesn't mean it's not a bad law. And by "bad", I don't mean it's intentions (stopping migrants illegally entering the country via small boats across the channel) are in some way wrong, I mean it is poorly drafted, and therefore inadvertantly criminalizes a lot of behavior.
Like with contracts, it's better to make sure the wording is in line with intentions, before they do into force.
How would an insurance company view insuring the RNLI in the current wording of the bill, do you think?
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
That sounds awful. Surely it is International Law that ships have to search for survivors etc?
The new law makes it an offence to "knowingly facilitate the arrival or attempted arrival in, or the attempted entry into, the United Kingdom" if you know or have reasonable cause to believe that the person is an asylum seeker.
Suspect that international law does mandate such a rescue. Basic human decency certainly does. And they getting your collar felt back on shore for "facilitating" their "arrival" by refusing to let them drown.
Ah well. Whither the country that rescued Jewish children fleeing the Nazis.
...also the Ugandan Asians....pull the ladder up Priti!
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
That sounds awful. Surely it is International Law that ships have to search for survivors etc?
The new law makes it an offence to "knowingly facilitate the arrival or attempted arrival in, or the attempted entry into, the United Kingdom" if you know or have reasonable cause to believe that the person is an asylum seeker.
Suspect that international law does mandate such a rescue. Basic human decency certainly does. And they getting your collar felt back on shore for "facilitating" their "arrival" by refusing to let them drown.
Ah well. Whither the country that rescued Jewish children fleeing the Nazis.
...also the Ugandan Asians....pull the ladder up Priti!
Did they enter illegally?
...who says boat migrants are illegal?
How many have valid Visas?
how many are asylum seekers?
Around a third of asylum applications are successful, and another third accepted on appeal, so yes, asylum seeking is a legal pursuit.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
That sounds awful. Surely it is International Law that ships have to search for survivors etc?
The new law makes it an offence to "knowingly facilitate the arrival or attempted arrival in, or the attempted entry into, the United Kingdom" if you know or have reasonable cause to believe that the person is an asylum seeker.
Suspect that international law does mandate such a rescue. Basic human decency certainly does. And they getting your collar felt back on shore for "facilitating" their "arrival" by refusing to let them drown.
Ah well. Whither the country that rescued Jewish children fleeing the Nazis.
...also the Ugandan Asians....pull the ladder up Priti!
Did they enter illegally?
...who says boat migrants are illegal?
If you were a legal migrant, why on earth would you run the gamut of the channel in an unseaworthy boat with no navigation or propulsion? do you know how dangerous that is? ever been in the channel at night?
Say you were at the top of an 80ft block of flats and wanted to exit. Would you take the stairs/lift, or jump off?
FFS
it depends whether the lifts and fire exits have been locked or not doesn't it, if you want to use this analogy, especially if you don't speak the language of the flat dwellers, but do speak the language of the people outside and more importantly have relations in the crowd below.
don't swear at me either. We aren't all boris fanboys you know.
If you are a legal migrant, surely the lifts and stairs are open.
They are closed to those who are not legal. So don't try. Its very dangerous. Its very, very irresponsible.
If we were next to a war torn country, fine. We are next to France.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
My son has just joined the RNLI and if you think they are going to let anyone drown then you are totally out of order and de facto attacking the RNLI service
My son will put his life on line to save life at sea and your political hatred disgusts me
Have a look at this if you have access - the RNLI are not happy.
The idea the RNLI will not rescue those in peril on the sea is a narrative so absurd it is nonsense
Please show me where the Home Secretary has said the RNLI will not save lives in the Channel or anywhere else
PS I am a RNLI supporter too!
In view of our connections with the sea going back generations we have always been supporters of the RNLI and my son joining the service has given us great pride
As it should! He and all the volunteers are bigger and better than most of us. All the more reason why you should be outraged by this bill.
Why not calm down, breathe, and read it. Then read what the RNLI say about it. Read what immigration lawyers are saying about it. The bill is clear and unambiguous in its explicit lack of protections for your son and his colleagues.
Right now you are ranting hysterically insisting that it isn't true because it can't be true because Boris is wonderful.
Read. The. Bill. You buffoon.
You lost me with buffoon
And nothing to do with Boris but someone has to stop these perilous journeys
I am certain nobody on here believes HMG will outlaw sea rescue and if the bill needs rewording then that will happen
"If the bill needs rewording". You tell me, it's your son facing jail.
And when it gets amended? The opposition will condemn the bill. The opposition will propose an amendment so your son doesn't go to jail. Tory MPs, their pliant press and PB Clown Apologists like you will condemn them as being soft on migration
Don't forget that people have been propagandised against asylum seekers for so long that they believe the people your son would rescue from drowning are here to both take the jobs and sponge off benefits...
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
My son has just joined the RNLI and if you think they are going to let anyone drown then you are totally out of order and de facto attacking the RNLI service
My son will put his life on line to save life at sea and your political hatred disgusts me
Have a look at this if you have access - the RNLI are not happy.
The idea the RNLI will not rescue those in peril on the sea is a narrative so absurd it is nonsense
Please show me where the Home Secretary has said the RNLI will not save lives in the Channel or anywhere else
PS I am a RNLI supporter too!
In view of our connections with the sea going back generations we have always been supporters of the RNLI and my son joining the service has given us great pride
As it should! He and all the volunteers are bigger and better than most of us. All the more reason why you should be outraged by this bill.
Why not calm down, breathe, and read it. Then read what the RNLI say about it. Read what immigration lawyers are saying about it. The bill is clear and unambiguous in its explicit lack of protections for your son and his colleagues.
Right now you are ranting hysterically insisting that it isn't true because it can't be true because Boris is wonderful.
Read. The. Bill. You buffoon.
You lost me with buffoon
And nothing to do with Boris but someone has to stop these perilous journeys
I am certain nobody on here believes HMG will outlaw sea rescue and if the bill needs rewording then that will happen
It is a massively obvious gap in the legislation.
So HMG are hugely incompetent. Nobody can be that incompetent. Can they?
THis raises two issues.
Insurance. When I sometimes did an outdoor activity voluntarily, we had insurance to cover liability for the association/group in questtion and its leaders. For instance if someone broke a leg and their insurers sued us. On one occasion, one group organizer tried to do without and tried to bounce us by volunteering us as leaders. He was furious when we refused and he had to replan.
Now that was civil liability. Not criminal. Which this will be.
And in practice. How do you tell a rubber boatload of people in mid-Channel from another boatload? Posh yachtie accents? Tough if they are not upper class. Brown skins? They might be from Malmesbury. Check their passports?
"Thank you, please go to that seat and strap in." ... "No, no good, sorry chum, back in you go".
And all that in the dark, in pourting rain and a Force 6 and higher?
To be fair I was angry that @RochdalePioneers was suggesting the RNLI would stand off and watch a child drown in front of them
As @rcs1000 confirms in reality this will not happen and the drafting may need amending
Er, RP didn't actually say your son wouldn't rescue a child - simply that it would be made illegal, which does not reflect on your son at all. But does put him in risk, till we know for sure the law is going to be changed.
That government messaging again: from 19th July you don’t need to wear masks but you should; you don’t need to work from home but you should; you don’t need to socially distance but you should. Everything is irreversible but might be reversed. I hope that is clear now. https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/1414170366033989632
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
That sounds awful. Surely it is International Law that ships have to search for survivors etc?
The new law makes it an offence to "knowingly facilitate the arrival or attempted arrival in, or the attempted entry into, the United Kingdom" if you know or have reasonable cause to believe that the person is an asylum seeker.
Suspect that international law does mandate such a rescue. Basic human decency certainly does. And they getting your collar felt back on shore for "facilitating" their "arrival" by refusing to let them drown.
Ah well. Whither the country that rescued Jewish children fleeing the Nazis.
...also the Ugandan Asians....pull the ladder up Priti!
Did they enter illegally?
...who says boat migrants are illegal?
If you were a legal migrant, why on earth would you run the gamut of the channel in an unseaworthy boat with no navigation or propulsion? do you know how dangerous that is? ever been in the channel at night?
Say you were at the top of an 80ft block of flats and wanted to exit. Would you take the stairs/lift, or jump off?
FFS
it depends whether the lifts and fire exits have been locked or not doesn't it, if you want to use this analogy, especially if you don't speak the language of the flat dwellers, but do speak the language of the people outside and more importantly have relations in the crowd below.
don't swear at me either. We aren't all boris fanboys you know.
Speaking English doesn't make you an asylum seeker or give you the right to migrate to the UK.
About a quarter of the people on the planet speak English. Should they all come here via dinghies?
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
My son has just joined the RNLI and if you think they are going to let anyone drown then you are totally out of order and de facto attacking the RNLI service
My son will put his life on line to save life at sea and your political hatred disgusts me
Have a look at this if you have access - the RNLI are not happy.
The idea the RNLI will not rescue those in peril on the sea is a narrative so absurd it is nonsense
Please show me where the Home Secretary has said the RNLI will not save lives in the Channel or anywhere else
PS I am a RNLI supporter too!
In view of our connections with the sea going back generations we have always been supporters of the RNLI and my son joining the service has given us great pride
As it should! He and all the volunteers are bigger and better than most of us. All the more reason why you should be outraged by this bill.
Why not calm down, breathe, and read it. Then read what the RNLI say about it. Read what immigration lawyers are saying about it. The bill is clear and unambiguous in its explicit lack of protections for your son and his colleagues.
Right now you are ranting hysterically insisting that it isn't true because it can't be true because Boris is wonderful.
Read. The. Bill. You buffoon.
You lost me with buffoon
And nothing to do with Boris but someone has to stop these perilous journeys
I am certain nobody on here believes HMG will outlaw sea rescue and if the bill needs rewording then that will happen
It is a massively obvious gap in the legislation.
So HMG are hugely incompetent. Nobody can be that incompetent. Can they?
THis raises two issues.
Insurance. When I sometimes did an outdoor activity voluntarily, we had insurance to cover liability for the association/group in questtion and its leaders. For instance if someone broke a leg and their insurers sued us. On one occasion, one group organizer tried to do without and tried to bounce us by volunteering us as leaders. He was furious when we refused and he had to replan.
Now that was civil liability. Not criminal. Which this will be.
And in practice. How do you tell a rubber boatload of people in mid-Channel from another boatload? Posh yachtie accents? Tough if they are not upper class. Brown skins? They might be from Malmesbury. Check their passports?
"Thank you, please go to that seat and strap in." ... "No, no good, sorry chum, back in you go".
And all that in the dark, in pourting rain and a Force 6 and higher?
To be fair I was angry that @RochdalePioneers was suggesting the RNLI would stand off and watch a child drown in front of them
As @rcs1000 confirms in reality this will not happen and the drafting may need amending
Not just the RNLI, all craft are under a legal and moral obligation to rescue those in peril on the sea.
Wording that should be in the bill before it goes to parliament.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
My son has just joined the RNLI and if you think they are going to let anyone drown then you are totally out of order and de facto attacking the RNLI service
My son will put his life on line to save life at sea and your political hatred disgusts me
Have a look at this if you have access - the RNLI are not happy.
The idea the RNLI will not rescue those in peril on the sea is a narrative so absurd it is nonsense
Please show me where the Home Secretary has said the RNLI will not save lives in the Channel or anywhere else
PS I am a RNLI supporter too!
In view of our connections with the sea going back generations we have always been supporters of the RNLI and my son joining the service has given us great pride
As it should! He and all the volunteers are bigger and better than most of us. All the more reason why you should be outraged by this bill.
Why not calm down, breathe, and read it. Then read what the RNLI say about it. Read what immigration lawyers are saying about it. The bill is clear and unambiguous in its explicit lack of protections for your son and his colleagues.
Right now you are ranting hysterically insisting that it isn't true because it can't be true because Boris is wonderful.
Read. The. Bill. You buffoon.
You lost me with buffoon
And nothing to do with Boris but someone has to stop these perilous journeys
I am certain nobody on here believes HMG will outlaw sea rescue and if the bill needs rewording then that will happen
It is a massively obvious gap in the legislation.
So HMG are hugely incompetent. Nobody can be that incompetent. Can they?
THis raises two issues.
Insurance. When I sometimes did an outdoor activity voluntarily, we had insurance to cover liability for the association/group in questtion and its leaders. For instance if someone broke a leg and their insurers sued us. On one occasion, one group organizer tried to do without and tried to bounce us by volunteering us as leaders. He was furious when we refused and he had to replan.
Now that was civil liability. Not criminal. Which this will be.
And in practice. How do you tell a rubber boatload of people in mid-Channel from another boatload? Posh yachtie accents? Tough if they are not upper class. Brown skins? They might be from Malmesbury. Check their passports?
"Thank you, please go to that seat and strap in." ... "No, no good, sorry chum, back in you go".
And all that in the dark, in pourting rain and a Force 6 and higher?
To be fair I was angry that @RochdalePioneers was suggesting the RNLI would stand off and watch a child drown in front of them
As @rcs1000 confirms in reality this will not happen and the drafting may need amending
You truly are a buffoon. Read the bill. Read what I posted. And breathe.
The government have drafted this bill in response to RNLI rescues of drowning asylum seekers. Hence explicitly making such actions illegal.
Stick a lifeboat next to drowning migrants and of course they pull them out of the sea. But as others have pointed out it becomes very difficult to operate and put yourself into a position where your actions lay yourselves open to prosecution and the organisation with it. They won't be there at all - which is what smirking Priti wants.
I have to laugh. A big pile on by you and others earlier for me being what was it, blinded by my hatred of Boris? And here you are blinded by your love of Boris to refuse to believe they are literally proposing a law to make his bravery a crime.
That government messaging again: from 19th July you don’t need to wear masks but you should; you don’t need to work from home but you should; you don’t need to socially distance but you should. Everything is irreversible but might be reversed. I hope that is clear now. https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/1414170366033989632
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
My son has just joined the RNLI and if you think they are going to let anyone drown then you are totally out of order and de facto attacking the RNLI service
My son will put his life on line to save life at sea and your political hatred disgusts me
Have a look at this if you have access - the RNLI are not happy.
The idea the RNLI will not rescue those in peril on the sea is a narrative so absurd it is nonsense
Please show me where the Home Secretary has said the RNLI will not save lives in the Channel or anywhere else
PS I am a RNLI supporter too!
In view of our connections with the sea going back generations we have always been supporters of the RNLI and my son joining the service has given us great pride
As it should! He and all the volunteers are bigger and better than most of us. All the more reason why you should be outraged by this bill.
Why not calm down, breathe, and read it. Then read what the RNLI say about it. Read what immigration lawyers are saying about it. The bill is clear and unambiguous in its explicit lack of protections for your son and his colleagues.
Right now you are ranting hysterically insisting that it isn't true because it can't be true because Boris is wonderful.
Read. The. Bill. You buffoon.
You lost me with buffoon
And nothing to do with Boris but someone has to stop these perilous journeys
I am certain nobody on here believes HMG will outlaw sea rescue and if the bill needs rewording then that will happen
"If the bill needs rewording". You tell me, it's your son facing jail.
And when it gets amended? The opposition will condemn the bill. The opposition will propose an amendment so your son doesn't go to jail. Tory MPs, their pliant press and PB Clown Apologists like you will condemn them as being soft on migration
Don't forget that people have been propagandised against asylum seekers for so long that they believe the people your son would rescue from drowning are here to both take the jobs and sponge off benefits...
Until and unless the law is changed, your son is at risk. Just leaving something to the discretion of the Home Sec or her minions is not good enough.
Remember the flak the RNLI has already taken in general for rescuing migrants, teaching foreigners with beown skins to swim (ironically enough I now realise).
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
My son has just joined the RNLI and if you think they are going to let anyone drown then you are totally out of order and de facto attacking the RNLI service
My son will put his life on line to save life at sea and your political hatred disgusts me
Have a look at this if you have access - the RNLI are not happy.
The idea the RNLI will not rescue those in peril on the sea is a narrative so absurd it is nonsense
Please show me where the Home Secretary has said the RNLI will not save lives in the Channel or anywhere else
PS I am a RNLI supporter too!
In view of our connections with the sea going back generations we have always been supporters of the RNLI and my son joining the service has given us great pride
As it should! He and all the volunteers are bigger and better than most of us. All the more reason why you should be outraged by this bill.
Why not calm down, breathe, and read it. Then read what the RNLI say about it. Read what immigration lawyers are saying about it. The bill is clear and unambiguous in its explicit lack of protections for your son and his colleagues.
Right now you are ranting hysterically insisting that it isn't true because it can't be true because Boris is wonderful.
Read. The. Bill. You buffoon.
You lost me with buffoon
And nothing to do with Boris but someone has to stop these perilous journeys
I am certain nobody on here believes HMG will outlaw sea rescue and if the bill needs rewording then that will happen
It is a massively obvious gap in the legislation.
So HMG are hugely incompetent. Nobody can be that incompetent. Can they?
THis raises two issues.
Insurance. When I sometimes did an outdoor activity voluntarily, we had insurance to cover liability for the association/group in questtion and its leaders. For instance if someone broke a leg and their insurers sued us. On one occasion, one group organizer tried to do without and tried to bounce us by volunteering us as leaders. He was furious when we refused and he had to replan.
Now that was civil liability. Not criminal. Which this will be.
And in practice. How do you tell a rubber boatload of people in mid-Channel from another boatload? Posh yachtie accents? Tough if they are not upper class. Brown skins? They might be from Malmesbury. Check their passports?
"Thank you, please go to that seat and strap in." ... "No, no good, sorry chum, back in you go".
And all that in the dark, in pourting rain and a Force 6 and higher?
To be fair I was angry that @RochdalePioneers was suggesting the RNLI would stand off and watch a child drown in front of them
As @rcs1000 confirms in reality this will not happen and the drafting may need amending
Not just the RNLI, all craft are under a legal and moral obligation to rescue those in peril on the sea.
Wording that should be in the bill before it goes to parliament.
Also international law. I don't know the details, or the precise interaction, but there is such a thing as maritime law.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
My son has just joined the RNLI and if you think they are going to let anyone drown then you are totally out of order and de facto attacking the RNLI service
My son will put his life on line to save life at sea and your political hatred disgusts me
Have a look at this if you have access - the RNLI are not happy.
The idea the RNLI will not rescue those in peril on the sea is a narrative so absurd it is nonsense
Please show me where the Home Secretary has said the RNLI will not save lives in the Channel or anywhere else
PS I am a RNLI supporter too!
In view of our connections with the sea going back generations we have always been supporters of the RNLI and my son joining the service has given us great pride
As it should! He and all the volunteers are bigger and better than most of us. All the more reason why you should be outraged by this bill.
Why not calm down, breathe, and read it. Then read what the RNLI say about it. Read what immigration lawyers are saying about it. The bill is clear and unambiguous in its explicit lack of protections for your son and his colleagues.
Right now you are ranting hysterically insisting that it isn't true because it can't be true because Boris is wonderful.
Read. The. Bill. You buffoon.
You lost me with buffoon
And nothing to do with Boris but someone has to stop these perilous journeys
I am certain nobody on here believes HMG will outlaw sea rescue and if the bill needs rewording then that will happen
It is a massively obvious gap in the legislation.
So HMG are hugely incompetent. Nobody can be that incompetent. Can they?
THis raises two issues.
Insurance. When I sometimes did an outdoor activity voluntarily, we had insurance to cover liability for the association/group in questtion and its leaders. For instance if someone broke a leg and their insurers sued us. On one occasion, one group organizer tried to do without and tried to bounce us by volunteering us as leaders. He was furious when we refused and he had to replan.
Now that was civil liability. Not criminal. Which this will be.
And in practice. How do you tell a rubber boatload of people in mid-Channel from another boatload? Posh yachtie accents? Tough if they are not upper class. Brown skins? They might be from Malmesbury. Check their passports?
"Thank you, please go to that seat and strap in." ... "No, no good, sorry chum, back in you go".
And all that in the dark, in pourting rain and a Force 6 and higher?
To be fair I was angry that @RochdalePioneers was suggesting the RNLI would stand off and watch a child drown in front of them
As @rcs1000 confirms in reality this will not happen and the drafting may need amending
Not just the RNLI, all craft are under a legal and moral obligation to rescue those in peril on the sea.
Wording that should be in the bill before it goes to parliament.
I'd like to set outside the actual immigrants for a moment, and consider the real criminals in this: the people who take money from the immigrants, then put them into unsuitable craft, often uncrewed, for journeys that kill many of them.
We need to really tackle the people smugglers, and that needs international action as their actions are international. Yet not much appears to be being done.
Personally, I'd like to cut the b******d's balls off, then throw them into the waters where they have committed so many innocents.
Nationally, we can strike at the modern slavers who take advantage of so many immigrants. A lifetime of indentured servitude washing cars or working in male brothels should be a suitable sentence for them...
Indeed.
Also we need to look much more closely at the hand France is playing here. What is life like for these people there, really?
Many of those wailing about the plight of boat migrants are remainers and as such France is above any criticism. I imagine, however, that precisely zero tears are shed for those leaving France by a government under severe pressure from a huge far right threat.
That is at least part of the agenda here, but of course it is totally ignored by those for whom the only fault lies in Britain.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
My son has just joined the RNLI and if you think they are going to let anyone drown then you are totally out of order and de facto attacking the RNLI service
My son will put his life on line to save life at sea and your political hatred disgusts me
Have a look at this if you have access - the RNLI are not happy.
The idea the RNLI will not rescue those in peril on the sea is a narrative so absurd it is nonsense
Please show me where the Home Secretary has said the RNLI will not save lives in the Channel or anywhere else
PS I am a RNLI supporter too!
In view of our connections with the sea going back generations we have always been supporters of the RNLI and my son joining the service has given us great pride
As it should! He and all the volunteers are bigger and better than most of us. All the more reason why you should be outraged by this bill.
Why not calm down, breathe, and read it. Then read what the RNLI say about it. Read what immigration lawyers are saying about it. The bill is clear and unambiguous in its explicit lack of protections for your son and his colleagues.
Right now you are ranting hysterically insisting that it isn't true because it can't be true because Boris is wonderful.
Read. The. Bill. You buffoon.
You lost me with buffoon
And nothing to do with Boris but someone has to stop these perilous journeys
I am certain nobody on here believes HMG will outlaw sea rescue and if the bill needs rewording then that will happen
It is a massively obvious gap in the legislation.
So HMG are hugely incompetent. Nobody can be that incompetent. Can they?
THis raises two issues.
Insurance. When I sometimes did an outdoor activity voluntarily, we had insurance to cover liability for the association/group in questtion and its leaders. For instance if someone broke a leg and their insurers sued us. On one occasion, one group organizer tried to do without and tried to bounce us by volunteering us as leaders. He was furious when we refused and he had to replan.
Now that was civil liability. Not criminal. Which this will be.
And in practice. How do you tell a rubber boatload of people in mid-Channel from another boatload? Posh yachtie accents? Tough if they are not upper class. Brown skins? They might be from Malmesbury. Check their passports?
"Thank you, please go to that seat and strap in." ... "No, no good, sorry chum, back in you go".
And all that in the dark, in pourting rain and a Force 6 and higher?
To be fair I was angry that @RochdalePioneers was suggesting the RNLI would stand off and watch a child drown in front of them
As @rcs1000 confirms in reality this will not happen and the drafting may need amending
You truly are a buffoon. Read the bill. Read what I posted. And breathe.
The government have drafted this bill in response to RNLI rescues of drowning asylum seekers. Hence explicitly making such actions illegal.
Stick a lifeboat next to drowning migrants and of course they pull them out of the sea. But as others have pointed out it becomes very difficult to operate and put yourself into a position where your actions lay yourselves open to prosecution and the organisation with it. They won't be there at all - which is what smirking Priti wants.
I have to laugh. A big pile on by you and others earlier for me being what was it, blinded by my hatred of Boris? And here you are blinded by your love of Boris to refuse to believe they are literally proposing a law to make his bravery a crime.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
My son has just joined the RNLI and if you think they are going to let anyone drown then you are totally out of order and de facto attacking the RNLI service
My son will put his life on line to save life at sea and your political hatred disgusts me
Have a look at this if you have access - the RNLI are not happy.
The idea the RNLI will not rescue those in peril on the sea is a narrative so absurd it is nonsense
Please show me where the Home Secretary has said the RNLI will not save lives in the Channel or anywhere else
PS I am a RNLI supporter too!
In view of our connections with the sea going back generations we have always been supporters of the RNLI and my son joining the service has given us great pride
As it should! He and all the volunteers are bigger and better than most of us. All the more reason why you should be outraged by this bill.
Why not calm down, breathe, and read it. Then read what the RNLI say about it. Read what immigration lawyers are saying about it. The bill is clear and unambiguous in its explicit lack of protections for your son and his colleagues.
Right now you are ranting hysterically insisting that it isn't true because it can't be true because Boris is wonderful.
Read. The. Bill. You buffoon.
You lost me with buffoon
And nothing to do with Boris but someone has to stop these perilous journeys
I am certain nobody on here believes HMG will outlaw sea rescue and if the bill needs rewording then that will happen
"If the bill needs rewording". You tell me, it's your son facing jail.
And when it gets amended? The opposition will condemn the bill. The opposition will propose an amendment so your son doesn't go to jail. Tory MPs, their pliant press and PB Clown Apologists like you will condemn them as being soft on migration
Don't forget that people have been propagandised against asylum seekers for so long that they believe the people your son would rescue from drowning are here to both take the jobs and sponge off benefits...
Until and unless the law is changed, your son is at risk. Just leaving something to the discretion of the Home Sec or her minions is not good enough.
Remember the flak the RNLI has already taken in general for rescuing migrants, teaching foreigners with beown skins to swim (ironically enough I now realise).
I can honestly say I have never heard such criticism or flak
So. If I, innocently swimming off the coast of Kent, find another person in distress, and drag them to the shore, perform CPR and water them and keep them warm, I can be prosecuted? Unless they are a UK citizen. In which case I am a hero? I'd be in the tabloids either way.
That government messaging again: from 19th July you don’t need to wear masks but you should; you don’t need to work from home but you should; you don’t need to socially distance but you should. Everything is irreversible but might be reversed. I hope that is clear now. https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/1414170366033989632
Another example of Johnson's utter gutless cowardliness comes from the Reform party. HMG were going to announce the end of gas boilers but this has now been put off until the autumn.
Boris clearly shat his pants yet again. He is Prime Minister, but utterly incapable of taking responsibility for anything.
So. If I, innocently swimming off the coast of Kent, find another person in distress, and drag them to the shore, perform CPR and water them and keep them warm, I can be prosecuted? Unless they are a UK citizen. In which case I am a hero? I'd be in the tabloids either way.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
That sounds awful. Surely it is International Law that ships have to search for survivors etc?
The new law makes it an offence to "knowingly facilitate the arrival or attempted arrival in, or the attempted entry into, the United Kingdom" if you know or have reasonable cause to believe that the person is an asylum seeker.
Suspect that international law does mandate such a rescue. Basic human decency certainly does. And they getting your collar felt back on shore for "facilitating" their "arrival" by refusing to let them drown.
Ah well. Whither the country that rescued Jewish children fleeing the Nazis.
...also the Ugandan Asians....pull the ladder up Priti!
Did they enter illegally?
...who says boat migrants are illegal?
If you were a legal migrant, why on earth would you run the gamut of the channel in an unseaworthy boat with no navigation or propulsion? do you know how dangerous that is? ever been in the channel at night?
Say you were at the top of an 80ft block of flats and wanted to exit. Would you take the stairs/lift, or jump off?
FFS
it depends whether the lifts and fire exits have been locked or not doesn't it, if you want to use this analogy, especially if you don't speak the language of the flat dwellers, but do speak the language of the people outside and more importantly have relations in the crowd below.
don't swear at me either. We aren't all boris fanboys you know.
Speaking English doesn't make you an asylum seeker or give you the right to migrate to the UK.
About a quarter of the people on the planet speak English. Should they all come here via dinghies?
Please answer one question for me, do you really believe that a person is an asylum seeker just because they speak English?, or perhaps they are being victimised, assaulted, threatened by people or the government in their own countries. As English is taught all over the world it is a reasonable decision for them to escape to a country where they can be understood. I'm sure if the USA, Canada or Australia were closer, they'd try to get there.
Prediction - there will be violence tonight, that’s obvious
The combo of an England final, Wembley, plus a year of plague and lockdown, makes it inevitable. I can hear chants and singing in Camden already. People want to partayyy
However, if England win the violence will be glossed over. Expect terms like ‘boyish horseplay’, ‘a few arrests’, ‘high spirits’, and so forth. If England lose, there might be a couple of stabbings, there will definitely be an orgy of Guardian think-pieces about ‘the ugly side of Englishness’.
You have a very peculiar interest in football violence. It really is not big and it is not clever, and it really doesn't need to be glorified. Call it what it is, unacceptable criminality.
As a teenager in the dangerous world of 1970s stadium attendeeship, I only twice found myself enveloped by football hooliganism. At a West Brom v Birmingham City First Division game at St. Andrews in 1976 we were challenged by a Bluenose to show our scarves which were hidden in our coat pockets. One friend, an Evertonian showed his scarf and we were allowed on our way. Later that same season at the Hereford United v Blackpool Division 2 game at Edgar Street I found myself chased through the cattle market by hundred of tangerine wearing yobbos, hurling bricks and bottles. As I turned into the safety of Commercial Street, I understood that this was all too dangerous, and although I didn't realise it at the time, my long history of wokery began.
So. If I, innocently swimming off the coast of Kent, find another person in distress, and drag them to the shore, perform CPR and water them and keep them warm, I can be prosecuted? Unless they are a UK citizen. In which case I am a hero? I'd be in the tabloids either way.
Not sure too many are being “rescued” in the shallows off the Kent Coast.
I'd like to set outside the actual immigrants for a moment, and consider the real criminals in this: the people who take money from the immigrants, then put them into unsuitable craft, often uncrewed, for journeys that kill many of them.
We need to really tackle the people smugglers, and that needs international action as their actions are international. Yet not much appears to be being done.
Personally, I'd like to cut the b******d's balls off, then throw them into the waters where they have committed so many innocents.
Nationally, we can strike at the modern slavers who take advantage of so many immigrants. A lifetime of indentured servitude washing cars or working in male brothels should be a suitable sentence for them...
If it had been made clear to the traffickers right from the start that what they do is unacceptable and a total waste of time and money, they wouldn't have bothered doing it. It's because they discovered pretty early on that trafficking people wasn't going to be met by a robust response by the authorities that they have made it into such a profitable business.
RNLI vows to continue sea rescues despite prison fears for picking up migrantshttps://on.ft.com/3r0HUQF
Shame on the Home Secretary for trying to make it illegal
She’s not…
There is a dispute over the interpretation of the word “facilitating” in draft legislation.
That’s the sort of thing that gets worked out in committee or in the Lords. The government has clearly stated that it is not their intention to criminalise sea rescue. I would expect them (if no other solution can be found) to repeat that in the House of Commons during passage of the bill, which would allow the courts to use that as a clear expression of parliament’s intention.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
My son has just joined the RNLI and if you think they are going to let anyone drown then you are totally out of order and de facto attacking the RNLI service
My son will put his life on line to save life at sea and your political hatred disgusts me
Have a look at this if you have access - the RNLI are not happy.
The idea the RNLI will not rescue those in peril on the sea is a narrative so absurd it is nonsense
Please show me where the Home Secretary has said the RNLI will not save lives in the Channel or anywhere else
PS I am a RNLI supporter too!
In view of our connections with the sea going back generations we have always been supporters of the RNLI and my son joining the service has given us great pride
As it should! He and all the volunteers are bigger and better than most of us. All the more reason why you should be outraged by this bill.
Why not calm down, breathe, and read it. Then read what the RNLI say about it. Read what immigration lawyers are saying about it. The bill is clear and unambiguous in its explicit lack of protections for your son and his colleagues.
Right now you are ranting hysterically insisting that it isn't true because it can't be true because Boris is wonderful.
Read. The. Bill. You buffoon.
You lost me with buffoon
And nothing to do with Boris but someone has to stop these perilous journeys
I am certain nobody on here believes HMG will outlaw sea rescue and if the bill needs rewording then that will happen
"If the bill needs rewording". You tell me, it's your son facing jail.
And when it gets amended? The opposition will condemn the bill. The opposition will propose an amendment so your son doesn't go to jail. Tory MPs, their pliant press and PB Clown Apologists like you will condemn them as being soft on migration
Don't forget that people have been propagandised against asylum seekers for so long that they believe the people your son would rescue from drowning are here to both take the jobs and sponge off benefits...
Until and unless the law is changed, your son is at risk. Just leaving something to the discretion of the Home Sec or her minions is not good enough.
Remember the flak the RNLI has already taken in general for rescuing migrants, teaching foreigners with beown skins to swim (ironically enough I now realise).
I can honestly say I have never heard such criticism or flak
We were talking about it on PB, and iut was all over the newspapers, but you might not have seen that, of course.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
My son has just joined the RNLI and if you think they are going to let anyone drown then you are totally out of order and de facto attacking the RNLI service
My son will put his life on line to save life at sea and your political hatred disgusts me
Have a look at this if you have access - the RNLI are not happy.
So. If I, innocently swimming off the coast of Kent, find another person in distress, and drag them to the shore, perform CPR and water them and keep them warm, I can be prosecuted? Unless they are a UK citizen. In which case I am a hero? I'd be in the tabloids either way.
It is nonsense
More likely if you were in a yacht in the channel and came across a dinghy full of asylum seekers and you rescued them, as per the International Law of the Sea, and then turned them in to the police in Dover, you would have a lot of explaining to do, it may involve a night in the cells until a solicitor could get you out. You would definately get arrested as you will ahve broken the law.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
That sounds awful. Surely it is International Law that ships have to search for survivors etc?
The new law makes it an offence to "knowingly facilitate the arrival or attempted arrival in, or the attempted entry into, the United Kingdom" if you know or have reasonable cause to believe that the person is an asylum seeker.
Suspect that international law does mandate such a rescue. Basic human decency certainly does. And they getting your collar felt back on shore for "facilitating" their "arrival" by refusing to let them drown.
Ah well. Whither the country that rescued Jewish children fleeing the Nazis.
...also the Ugandan Asians....pull the ladder up Priti!
Did they enter illegally?
...who says boat migrants are illegal?
If you were a legal migrant, why on earth would you run the gamut of the channel in an unseaworthy boat with no navigation or propulsion? do you know how dangerous that is? ever been in the channel at night?
Say you were at the top of an 80ft block of flats and wanted to exit. Would you take the stairs/lift, or jump off?
FFS
it depends whether the lifts and fire exits have been locked or not doesn't it, if you want to use this analogy, especially if you don't speak the language of the flat dwellers, but do speak the language of the people outside and more importantly have relations in the crowd below.
don't swear at me either. We aren't all boris fanboys you know.
Speaking English doesn't make you an asylum seeker or give you the right to migrate to the UK.
About a quarter of the people on the planet speak English. Should they all come here via dinghies?
Please answer one question for me, do you really believe that a person is an asylum seeker just because they speak English?, or perhaps they are being victimised, assaulted, threatened by people or the government in their own countries. As English is taught all over the world it is a reasonable decision for them to escape to a country where they can be understood. I'm sure if the USA, Canada or Australia were closer, they'd try to get there.
They are not coming here from their own countries though. They are coming from France. Which is apparently a safe and stable democracy.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
My son has just joined the RNLI and if you think they are going to let anyone drown then you are totally out of order and de facto attacking the RNLI service
My son will put his life on line to save life at sea and your political hatred disgusts me
Wowsers. I am not attacking your son you buffoon. I am attacking the law which makes his saving certain lives at sea a criminal offence.
It doesn’t. The government has said that isn’t the intention. The wording will get cleaned up.
So. If I, innocently swimming off the coast of Kent, find another person in distress, and drag them to the shore, perform CPR and water them and keep them warm, I can be prosecuted? Unless they are a UK citizen. In which case I am a hero? I'd be in the tabloids either way.
It is nonsense
More likely if you were in a yacht in the channel and came across a dinghy full of asylum seekers and you rescued them, as per the International Law of the Sea, and then turned them in to the police in Dover, you would have a lot of explaining to do, it may involve a night in the cells until a solicitor could get you out. You would definately get arrested as you will ahve broken the law.
Criminal record? DNA on the database? Yacht confiscated?
So. If I, innocently swimming off the coast of Kent, find another person in distress, and drag them to the shore, perform CPR and water them and keep them warm, I can be prosecuted? Unless they are a UK citizen. In which case I am a hero? I'd be in the tabloids either way.
It is nonsense
More likely if you were in a yacht in the channel and came across a dinghy full of asylum seekers and you rescued them, as per the International Law of the Sea, and then turned them in to the police in Dover, you would have a lot of explaining to do, it may involve a night in the cells until a solicitor could get you out. You would definately get arrested as you will ahve broken the law.
An unseaworthy dinghy crammed with asylum seekers adheres to the International Law of the Sea??
Prediction - there will be violence tonight, that’s obvious
The combo of an England final, Wembley, plus a year of plague and lockdown, makes it inevitable. I can hear chants and singing in Camden already. People want to partayyy
However, if England win the violence will be glossed over. Expect terms like ‘boyish horseplay’, ‘a few arrests’, ‘high spirits’, and so forth. If England lose, there might be a couple of stabbings, there will definitely be an orgy of Guardian think-pieces about ‘the ugly side of Englishness’.
You have a very peculiar interest in football violence. It really is not big and it is not clever, and it really doesn't need to be glorified. Call it what it is, unacceptable criminality.
As a teenager in the dangerous world of 1970s stadium attendeeship, I only twice found myself enveloped by football hooliganism. At a West Brom v Birmingham City First Division game at St. Andrews in 1976 we were challenged by a Bluenose to show our scarves which were hidden in our coat pockets. One friend, an Evertonian showed his scarf and we were allowed on our way. Later that same year at the Hereford United v Blackpool Division 2 game at Edgar Street I found myself chased through the cattle market by hundred of tangerine wearing yobbos, hurling bricks and bottles. As I turned into the safety of Commercial Street, I realised this was all too dangerous, and although I didn't realise it at the time, my long history of wokery began.
I found myself caught up in a Swansea / Cardiff clash in the early 1990s: a mass of chanting, marauding Cardiff fans behind me; a line of coppers with brandished truncheons in front.
So. If I, innocently swimming off the coast of Kent, find another person in distress, and drag them to the shore, perform CPR and water them and keep them warm, I can be prosecuted? Unless they are a UK citizen. In which case I am a hero? I'd be in the tabloids either way.
It is nonsense
More likely if you were in a yacht in the channel and came across a dinghy full of asylum seekers and you rescued them, as per the International Law of the Sea, and then turned them in to the police in Dover, you would have a lot of explaining to do, it may involve a night in the cells until a solicitor could get you out. You would definately get arrested as you will ahve broken the law.
Criminal record? DNA on the database? Yacht confiscated?
What happens if you refused to rescue them? A clear breach of Maritime Law.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
My son has just joined the RNLI and if you think they are going to let anyone drown then you are totally out of order and de facto attacking the RNLI service
My son will put his life on line to save life at sea and your political hatred disgusts me
Wowsers. I am not attacking your son you buffoon. I am attacking the law which makes his saving certain lives at sea a criminal offence.
It doesn’t. The government has said that isn’t the intention. The wording will get cleaned up.
By the opposition. Once the government have virtue signalled to their base that they are sympathetic to the endless "let them drown" comments that always get posted when the Nigel goes out on his dinghy.
You and I both know how bills gets drafted. This isn't a whoopsie.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
That sounds awful. Surely it is International Law that ships have to search for survivors etc?
The new law makes it an offence to "knowingly facilitate the arrival or attempted arrival in, or the attempted entry into, the United Kingdom" if you know or have reasonable cause to believe that the person is an asylum seeker.
Suspect that international law does mandate such a rescue. Basic human decency certainly does. And they getting your collar felt back on shore for "facilitating" their "arrival" by refusing to let them drown.
Ah well. Whither the country that rescued Jewish children fleeing the Nazis.
...also the Ugandan Asians....pull the ladder up Priti!
Did they enter illegally?
...who says boat migrants are illegal?
If you were a legal migrant, why on earth would you run the gamut of the channel in an unseaworthy boat with no navigation or propulsion? do you know how dangerous that is? ever been in the channel at night?
Say you were at the top of an 80ft block of flats and wanted to exit. Would you take the stairs/lift, or jump off?
FFS
it depends whether the lifts and fire exits have been locked or not doesn't it, if you want to use this analogy, especially if you don't speak the language of the flat dwellers, but do speak the language of the people outside and more importantly have relations in the crowd below.
don't swear at me either. We aren't all boris fanboys you know.
Speaking English doesn't make you an asylum seeker or give you the right to migrate to the UK.
About a quarter of the people on the planet speak English. Should they all come here via dinghies?
Please answer one question for me, do you really believe that a person is an asylum seeker just because they speak English?, or perhaps they are being victimised, assaulted, threatened by people or the government in their own countries. As English is taught all over the world it is a reasonable decision for them to escape to a country where they can be understood. I'm sure if the USA, Canada or Australia were closer, they'd try to get there.
If they are victimised, assaulted, threaned by the people or the government in their own countries then they're welcome to seek asylum in the first safe country they can get to. EG Turkey, Spain, Portugal, France etc
They they speak English is not justification to come to the UK.
I'd like to set outside the actual immigrants for a moment, and consider the real criminals in this: the people who take money from the immigrants, then put them into unsuitable craft, often uncrewed, for journeys that kill many of them.
We need to really tackle the people smugglers, and that needs international action as their actions are international. Yet not much appears to be being done.
Personally, I'd like to cut the b******d's balls off, then throw them into the waters where they have committed so many innocents.
Nationally, we can strike at the modern slavers who take advantage of so many immigrants. A lifetime of indentured servitude washing cars or working in male brothels should be a suitable sentence for them...
And yet when the Home Office/police try to arrest 2 of them lots of Scot Nationalstd gather around and make it impossible
1 - Why is this export of apples to India suddenly a big issue wrt to Trade Deals. Can anyone explain why they were banned before? Poland and others have been exporting 10s of thousands of tons a year.
Presentational pratfall?
2 - Any recommendations for a decent film as a alternative to this effing football game? Debate (here and elsewhere) seems to be contempt/confrontation-driven. No longer interested.
Prediction - there will be violence tonight, that’s obvious
The combo of an England final, Wembley, plus a year of plague and lockdown, makes it inevitable. I can hear chants and singing in Camden already. People want to partayyy
However, if England win the violence will be glossed over. Expect terms like ‘boyish horseplay’, ‘a few arrests’, ‘high spirits’, and so forth. If England lose, there might be a couple of stabbings, there will definitely be an orgy of Guardian think-pieces about ‘the ugly side of Englishness’.
You have a very peculiar interest in football violence. It really is not big and it is not clever, and it really doesn't need to be glorified. Call it what it is, unacceptable criminality.
As a teenager in the dangerous world of 1970s stadium attendeeship, I only twice found myself enveloped by football hooliganism. At a West Brom v Birmingham City First Division game at St. Andrews in 1976 we were challenged by a Bluenose to show our scarves which were hidden in our coat pockets. One friend, an Evertonian showed his scarf and we were allowed on our way. Later that same season at the Hereford United v Blackpool Division 2 game at Edgar Street I found myself chased through the cattle market by hundred of tangerine wearing yobbos, hurling bricks and bottles. As I turned into the safety of Commercial Street, I understood that this was all too dangerous, and although I didn't realise it at the time, my long history of wokery began.
lol. I'm just stating a fact. This is not a "peculiar interest in football violence"
Weirdly, I may have been in the exact same stramash as you! Hereford V Blackpool
Do you remember the day Wolves came to town, and smashed it up?
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
My son has just joined the RNLI and if you think they are going to let anyone drown then you are totally out of order and de facto attacking the RNLI service
My son will put his life on line to save life at sea and your political hatred disgusts me
Have a look at this if you have access - the RNLI are not happy.
The idea the RNLI will not rescue those in peril on the sea is a narrative so absurd it is nonsense
Please show me where the Home Secretary has said the RNLI will not save lives in the Channel or anywhere else
PS I am a RNLI supporter too!
In view of our connections with the sea going back generations we have always been supporters of the RNLI and my son joining the service has given us great pride
As it should! He and all the volunteers are bigger and better than most of us. All the more reason why you should be outraged by this bill.
Why not calm down, breathe, and read it. Then read what the RNLI say about it. Read what immigration lawyers are saying about it. The bill is clear and unambiguous in its explicit lack of protections for your son and his colleagues.
Right now you are ranting hysterically insisting that it isn't true because it can't be true because Boris is wonderful.
Read. The. Bill. You buffoon.
You lost me with buffoon
And nothing to do with Boris but someone has to stop these perilous journeys
I am certain nobody on here believes HMG will outlaw sea rescue and if the bill needs rewording then that will happen
"If the bill needs rewording". You tell me, it's your son facing jail.
And when it gets amended? The opposition will condemn the bill. The opposition will propose an amendment so your son doesn't go to jail. Tory MPs, their pliant press and PB Clown Apologists like you will condemn them as being soft on migration
Don't forget that people have been propagandised against asylum seekers for so long that they believe the people your son would rescue from drowning are here to both take the jobs and sponge off benefits...
Until and unless the law is changed, your son is at risk. Just leaving something to the discretion of the Home Sec or her minions is not good enough.
Remember the flak the RNLI has already taken in general for rescuing migrants, teaching foreigners with beown skins to swim (ironically enough I now realise).
I'd like to set outside the actual immigrants for a moment, and consider the real criminals in this: the people who take money from the immigrants, then put them into unsuitable craft, often uncrewed, for journeys that kill many of them.
We need to really tackle the people smugglers, and that needs international action as their actions are international. Yet not much appears to be being done.
Personally, I'd like to cut the b******d's balls off, then throw them into the waters where they have committed so many innocents.
Nationally, we can strike at the modern slavers who take advantage of so many immigrants. A lifetime of indentured servitude washing cars or working in male brothels should be a suitable sentence for them...
And yet when the Home Office/police try to arrest 2 of them lots of Scot Nationalstd gather around and make it impossible
How do you iknow? They could be Labour, Green, LD or not at all voting.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
My son has just joined the RNLI and if you think they are going to let anyone drown then you are totally out of order and de facto attacking the RNLI service
My son will put his life on line to save life at sea and your political hatred disgusts me
Have a look at this if you have access - the RNLI are not happy.
The idea the RNLI will not rescue those in peril on the sea is a narrative so absurd it is nonsense
Please show me where the Home Secretary has said the RNLI will not save lives in the Channel or anywhere else
PS I am a RNLI supporter too!
In view of our connections with the sea going back generations we have always been supporters of the RNLI and my son joining the service has given us great pride
As it should! He and all the volunteers are bigger and better than most of us. All the more reason why you should be outraged by this bill.
Why not calm down, breathe, and read it. Then read what the RNLI say about it. Read what immigration lawyers are saying about it. The bill is clear and unambiguous in its explicit lack of protections for your son and his colleagues.
Right now you are ranting hysterically insisting that it isn't true because it can't be true because Boris is wonderful.
Read. The. Bill. You buffoon.
You lost me with buffoon
And nothing to do with Boris but someone has to stop these perilous journeys
I am certain nobody on here believes HMG will outlaw sea rescue and if the bill needs rewording then that will happen
"If the bill needs rewording". You tell me, it's your son facing jail.
And when it gets amended? The opposition will condemn the bill. The opposition will propose an amendment so your son doesn't go to jail. Tory MPs, their pliant press and PB Clown Apologists like you will condemn them as being soft on migration
Don't forget that people have been propagandised against asylum seekers for so long that they believe the people your son would rescue from drowning are here to both take the jobs and sponge off benefits...
Until and unless the law is changed, your son is at risk. Just leaving something to the discretion of the Home Sec or her minions is not good enough.
Remember the flak the RNLI has already taken in general for rescuing migrants, teaching foreigners with beown skins to swim (ironically enough I now realise).
So. If I, innocently swimming off the coast of Kent, find another person in distress, and drag them to the shore, perform CPR and water them and keep them warm, I can be prosecuted? Unless they are a UK citizen. In which case I am a hero? I'd be in the tabloids either way.
It is nonsense
More likely if you were in a yacht in the channel and came across a dinghy full of asylum seekers and you rescued them, as per the International Law of the Sea, and then turned them in to the police in Dover, you would have a lot of explaining to do, it may involve a night in the cells until a solicitor could get you out. You would definately get arrested as you will ahve broken the law.
An unseaworthy dinghy crammed with asylum seekers adheres to the International Law of the Sea??
It doesn't matter what you are being rescued from, people have been rescued from rowing boats, surfboards, liferafts.
I often wonder whether any boris fanboys on PB will actually rescue any asylum seekers, or just condemn them to drown. I think us normal conscientious people deserve an answer to that question. (I won't mention names)
1 - Why is this export of apples to India suddenly a big issue wrt to Trade Deals. Can anyone explain why they were banned before? Poland and others have been exporting 10s of thousands of tons a year.
Presentational pratfall?
2 - Any recommendations for a decent film as a alternative to this effing football game? Debate (here and elsewhere) seems to be contempt/confrontation-driven. No longer interested.
Why not Ammonite? Lots of ladies and fossils. Nothing nearer footie than a distant connection throuhg flint knsapping. I have not seen it, but gather it's not too bad.
1 - Why is this export of apples to India suddenly a big issue wrt to Trade Deals. Can anyone explain why they were banned before? Poland and others have been exporting 10s of thousands of tons a year.
Presentational pratfall?
2 - Any recommendations for a decent film as a alternative to this effing football game? Debate (here and elsewhere) seems to be contempt/confrontation-driven. No longer interested.
So. If I, innocently swimming off the coast of Kent, find another person in distress, and drag them to the shore, perform CPR and water them and keep them warm, I can be prosecuted? Unless they are a UK citizen. In which case I am a hero? I'd be in the tabloids either way.
It is nonsense
More likely if you were in a yacht in the channel and came across a dinghy full of asylum seekers and you rescued them, as per the International Law of the Sea, and then turned them in to the police in Dover, you would have a lot of explaining to do, it may involve a night in the cells until a solicitor could get you out. You would definately get arrested as you will ahve broken the law.
An unseaworthy dinghy crammed with asylum seekers adheres to the International Law of the Sea??
It doesn't matter what you are being rescued from, people have been rescued from rowing boats, surfboards, liferafts.
I often wonder whether any boris fanboys on PB will actually rescue any asylum seekers, or just condemn them to drown. I think us normal conscientious people deserve an answer to that question. (I won't mention names)
"will" sounds a bit going down to Dover in your Speedos.
Prediction - there will be violence tonight, that’s obvious
The combo of an England final, Wembley, plus a year of plague and lockdown, makes it inevitable. I can hear chants and singing in Camden already. People want to partayyy
However, if England win the violence will be glossed over. Expect terms like ‘boyish horseplay’, ‘a few arrests’, ‘high spirits’, and so forth. If England lose, there might be a couple of stabbings, there will definitely be an orgy of Guardian think-pieces about ‘the ugly side of Englishness’.
You have a very peculiar interest in football violence. It really is not big and it is not clever, and it really doesn't need to be glorified. Call it what it is, unacceptable criminality.
As a teenager in the dangerous world of 1970s stadium attendeeship, I only twice found myself enveloped by football hooliganism. At a West Brom v Birmingham City First Division game at St. Andrews in 1976 we were challenged by a Bluenose to show our scarves which were hidden in our coat pockets. One friend, an Evertonian showed his scarf and we were allowed on our way. Later that same year at the Hereford United v Blackpool Division 2 game at Edgar Street I found myself chased through the cattle market by hundred of tangerine wearing yobbos, hurling bricks and bottles. As I turned into the safety of Commercial Street, I realised this was all too dangerous, and although I didn't realise it at the time, my long history of wokery began.
I found myself caught up in a Swansea / Cardiff clash in the early 1990s: a mass of chanting, marauding Cardiff fans behind me; a line of coppers with brandished truncheons in front.
The Kingsway is like that every Saturday, and that's just to contain the shoppers.
So. If I, innocently swimming off the coast of Kent, find another person in distress, and drag them to the shore, perform CPR and water them and keep them warm, I can be prosecuted? Unless they are a UK citizen. In which case I am a hero? I'd be in the tabloids either way.
It is nonsense
More likely if you were in a yacht in the channel and came across a dinghy full of asylum seekers and you rescued them, as per the International Law of the Sea, and then turned them in to the police in Dover, you would have a lot of explaining to do, it may involve a night in the cells until a solicitor could get you out. You would definately get arrested as you will ahve broken the law.
An unseaworthy dinghy crammed with asylum seekers adheres to the International Law of the Sea??
It doesn't matter what you are being rescued from, people have been rescued from rowing boats, surfboards, liferafts.
I often wonder whether any boris fanboys on PB will actually rescue any asylum seekers, or just condemn them to drown. I think us normal conscientious people deserve an answer to that question. (I won't mention names)
We should do as Australia does. Rescue and deport them instantly.
Only that will stop the drownings.
We should bring in our fair share of asylum seekers from safe and legal routes, not via a Darwinian "if you don't die getting here first" process.
Prediction - there will be violence tonight, that’s obvious
The combo of an England final, Wembley, plus a year of plague and lockdown, makes it inevitable. I can hear chants and singing in Camden already. People want to partayyy
However, if England win the violence will be glossed over. Expect terms like ‘boyish horseplay’, ‘a few arrests’, ‘high spirits’, and so forth. If England lose, there might be a couple of stabbings, there will definitely be an orgy of Guardian think-pieces about ‘the ugly side of Englishness’.
You have a very peculiar interest in football violence. It really is not big and it is not clever, and it really doesn't need to be glorified. Call it what it is, unacceptable criminality.
As a teenager in the dangerous world of 1970s stadium attendeeship, I only twice found myself enveloped by football hooliganism. At a West Brom v Birmingham City First Division game at St. Andrews in 1976 we were challenged by a Bluenose to show our scarves which were hidden in our coat pockets. One friend, an Evertonian showed his scarf and we were allowed on our way. Later that same year at the Hereford United v Blackpool Division 2 game at Edgar Street I found myself chased through the cattle market by hundred of tangerine wearing yobbos, hurling bricks and bottles. As I turned into the safety of Commercial Street, I realised this was all too dangerous, and although I didn't realise it at the time, my long history of wokery began.
I found myself caught up in a Swansea / Cardiff clash in the early 1990s: a mass of chanting, marauding Cardiff fans behind me; a line of coppers with brandished truncheons in front.
Sounds like a scene from Among The Thugs by Bill Buford.
So. If I, innocently swimming off the coast of Kent, find another person in distress, and drag them to the shore, perform CPR and water them and keep them warm, I can be prosecuted? Unless they are a UK citizen. In which case I am a hero? I'd be in the tabloids either way.
It is nonsense
More likely if you were in a yacht in the channel and came across a dinghy full of asylum seekers and you rescued them, as per the International Law of the Sea, and then turned them in to the police in Dover, you would have a lot of explaining to do, it may involve a night in the cells until a solicitor could get you out. You would definately get arrested as you will ahve broken the law.
An unseaworthy dinghy crammed with asylum seekers adheres to the International Law of the Sea??
It doesn't matter what you are being rescued from, people have been rescued from rowing boats, surfboards, liferafts.
I often wonder whether any boris fanboys on PB will actually rescue any asylum seekers, or just condemn them to drown. I think us normal conscientious people deserve an answer to that question. (I won't mention names)
We should do as Australia does. Rescue and deport them instantly.
Only that will stop the drownings.
At least you'd rescue them, there's hope for you yet, even with the subsequent criminal record.
Prediction - there will be violence tonight, that’s obvious
The combo of an England final, Wembley, plus a year of plague and lockdown, makes it inevitable. I can hear chants and singing in Camden already. People want to partayyy
However, if England win the violence will be glossed over. Expect terms like ‘boyish horseplay’, ‘a few arrests’, ‘high spirits’, and so forth. If England lose, there might be a couple of stabbings, there will definitely be an orgy of Guardian think-pieces about ‘the ugly side of Englishness’.
You have a very peculiar interest in football violence. It really is not big and it is not clever, and it really doesn't need to be glorified. Call it what it is, unacceptable criminality.
As a teenager in the dangerous world of 1970s stadium attendeeship, I only twice found myself enveloped by football hooliganism. At a West Brom v Birmingham City First Division game at St. Andrews in 1976 we were challenged by a Bluenose to show our scarves which were hidden in our coat pockets. One friend, an Evertonian showed his scarf and we were allowed on our way. Later that same season at the Hereford United v Blackpool Division 2 game at Edgar Street I found myself chased through the cattle market by hundred of tangerine wearing yobbos, hurling bricks and bottles. As I turned into the safety of Commercial Street, I understood that this was all too dangerous, and although I didn't realise it at the time, my long history of wokery began.
I'm not particularly interested in football but football violence is an interesting subject.
2 - Any recommendations for a decent film as a alternative to this effing football game? Debate (here and elsewhere) seems to be contempt/confrontation-driven. No longer interested.
Prediction - there will be violence tonight, that’s obvious
The combo of an England final, Wembley, plus a year of plague and lockdown, makes it inevitable. I can hear chants and singing in Camden already. People want to partayyy
However, if England win the violence will be glossed over. Expect terms like ‘boyish horseplay’, ‘a few arrests’, ‘high spirits’, and so forth. If England lose, there might be a couple of stabbings, there will definitely be an orgy of Guardian think-pieces about ‘the ugly side of Englishness’.
You have a very peculiar interest in football violence. It really is not big and it is not clever, and it really doesn't need to be glorified. Call it what it is, unacceptable criminality.
As a teenager in the dangerous world of 1970s stadium attendeeship, I only twice found myself enveloped by football hooliganism. At a West Brom v Birmingham City First Division game at St. Andrews in 1976 we were challenged by a Bluenose to show our scarves which were hidden in our coat pockets. One friend, an Evertonian showed his scarf and we were allowed on our way. Later that same year at the Hereford United v Blackpool Division 2 game at Edgar Street I found myself chased through the cattle market by hundred of tangerine wearing yobbos, hurling bricks and bottles. As I turned into the safety of Commercial Street, I realised this was all too dangerous, and although I didn't realise it at the time, my long history of wokery began.
I found myself caught up in a Swansea / Cardiff clash in the early 1990s: a mass of chanting, marauding Cardiff fans behind me; a line of coppers with brandished truncheons in front.
Sounds like a scene from Among The Thugs by Bill Buford.
So. If I, innocently swimming off the coast of Kent, find another person in distress, and drag them to the shore, perform CPR and water them and keep them warm, I can be prosecuted? Unless they are a UK citizen. In which case I am a hero? I'd be in the tabloids either way.
It is nonsense
More likely if you were in a yacht in the channel and came across a dinghy full of asylum seekers and you rescued them, as per the International Law of the Sea, and then turned them in to the police in Dover, you would have a lot of explaining to do, it may involve a night in the cells until a solicitor could get you out. You would definately get arrested as you will ahve broken the law.
An unseaworthy dinghy crammed with asylum seekers adheres to the International Law of the Sea??
It doesn't matter what you are being rescued from, people have been rescued from rowing boats, surfboards, liferafts.
I often wonder whether any boris fanboys on PB will actually rescue any asylum seekers, or just condemn them to drown. I think us normal conscientious people deserve an answer to that question. (I won't mention names)
"will" sounds a bit going down to Dover in your Speedos.
I'd like to set outside the actual immigrants for a moment, and consider the real criminals in this: the people who take money from the immigrants, then put them into unsuitable craft, often uncrewed, for journeys that kill many of them.
We need to really tackle the people smugglers, and that needs international action as their actions are international. Yet not much appears to be being done.
Personally, I'd like to cut the b******d's balls off, then throw them into the waters where they have committed so many innocents.
Nationally, we can strike at the modern slavers who take advantage of so many immigrants. A lifetime of indentured servitude washing cars or working in male brothels should be a suitable sentence for them...
And yet when the Home Office/police try to arrest 2 of them lots of Scot Nationalstd gather around and make it impossible
These guys were people smugglers? Please tell me more.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
My son has just joined the RNLI and if you think they are going to let anyone drown then you are totally out of order and de facto attacking the RNLI service
My son will put his life on line to save life at sea and your political hatred disgusts me
Wowsers. I am not attacking your son you buffoon. I am attacking the law which makes his saving certain lives at sea a criminal offence.
It doesn’t. The government has said that isn’t the intention. The wording will get cleaned up.
By the opposition. Once the government have virtue signalled to their base that they are sympathetic to the endless "let them drown" comments that always get posted when the Nigel goes out on his dinghy.
You and I both know how bills gets drafted. This isn't a whoopsie.
Usually sloppily because they rely on committee to clean them up.
A general rule that I have found very useful in life is “never ascribe to malice what can satisfactorily be explained by incompetence”
So. If I, innocently swimming off the coast of Kent, find another person in distress, and drag them to the shore, perform CPR and water them and keep them warm, I can be prosecuted? Unless they are a UK citizen. In which case I am a hero? I'd be in the tabloids either way.
It is nonsense
More likely if you were in a yacht in the channel and came across a dinghy full of asylum seekers and you rescued them, as per the International Law of the Sea, and then turned them in to the police in Dover, you would have a lot of explaining to do, it may involve a night in the cells until a solicitor could get you out. You would definately get arrested as you will ahve broken the law.
An unseaworthy dinghy crammed with asylum seekers adheres to the International Law of the Sea??
It doesn't matter what you are being rescued from, people have been rescued from rowing boats, surfboards, liferafts.
I often wonder whether any boris fanboys on PB will actually rescue any asylum seekers, or just condemn them to drown. I think us normal conscientious people deserve an answer to that question. (I won't mention names)
Your last sentence does not need a response from the vast majority of us who would rescue anyone at sea at anytime and anyplace
Indeed my son in laws father, as chief engineer on a trans Atlantic ship, took charge of a major rescue of crew from a sinking ship in mid Atlantic
I'd like to set outside the actual immigrants for a moment, and consider the real criminals in this: the people who take money from the immigrants, then put them into unsuitable craft, often uncrewed, for journeys that kill many of them.
We need to really tackle the people smugglers, and that needs international action as their actions are international. Yet not much appears to be being done.
Personally, I'd like to cut the b******d's balls off, then throw them into the waters where they have committed so many innocents.
Nationally, we can strike at the modern slavers who take advantage of so many immigrants. A lifetime of indentured servitude washing cars or working in male brothels should be a suitable sentence for them...
And yet when the Home Office/police try to arrest 2 of them lots of Scot Nationalstd gather around and make it impossible
i thought these were asylum seekers not modern slavers
I'd like to set outside the actual immigrants for a moment, and consider the real criminals in this: the people who take money from the immigrants, then put them into unsuitable craft, often uncrewed, for journeys that kill many of them.
We need to really tackle the people smugglers, and that needs international action as their actions are international. Yet not much appears to be being done.
Personally, I'd like to cut the b******d's balls off, then throw them into the waters where they have committed so many innocents.
Nationally, we can strike at the modern slavers who take advantage of so many immigrants. A lifetime of indentured servitude washing cars or working in male brothels should be a suitable sentence for them...
And yet when the Home Office/police try to arrest 2 of them lots of Scot Nationalstd gather around and make it impossible
How do you iknow? They could be Labour, Green, LD or not at all voting.
True, although it was mainly IIRC @uniondivvie posting the clips.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
My son has just joined the RNLI and if you think they are going to let anyone drown then you are totally out of order and de facto attacking the RNLI service
My son will put his life on line to save life at sea and your political hatred disgusts me
Wowsers. I am not attacking your son you buffoon. I am attacking the law which makes his saving certain lives at sea a criminal offence.
It doesn’t. The government has said that isn’t the intention. The wording will get cleaned up.
By the opposition. Once the government have virtue signalled to their base that they are sympathetic to the endless "let them drown" comments that always get posted when the Nigel goes out on his dinghy.
You and I both know how bills gets drafted. This isn't a whoopsie.
Usually sloppily because they rely on committee to clean them up.
A general rule that I have found very useful in life is “never ascribe to malice what can satisfactorily be explained by incompetence”
Its not even incompetence, they've made their intentions clear and if there's any ambiguity then its the committees job to scrutinise and amend it for the better if needed.
Their intentions are to criminalise people smuggling, removing the requirement to prove "for profit" and simply make people smuggling a crime. The intention is not to criminalise the RNLI and its just petty pointscoring politics to suggest it is.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
I've lived here in my little Buchan village for 5 months now. I haven't exactly hidden myself under a stone and have heard literally one single anti-English comment, and even that as much anti-woman as English.
There are nobbers wherever you go. But whatever visceral hatred of me there is for not being born here, I haven't seen or heard it. Unlike the abuse that was so ingrained into the "parochial bigotry" of my former small North Yorkshire town against anyone who wasn't born and raised there.
Without wanting to reopen this morning's quite funny "attacks" on me (bless), there is a definite compare and contrast between my new country who has a pro-migration policy and my old country now making it illegal to rescue a drowning migrant child.
You seem to be a big fan of extrapolating individual experience into a diatribe against an entire national culture - that's what gets peoples' back up, as you treat your conclusion as proven fact not opinion.
I've never seen or heard any such abuse in my town in 30+ yearts, but I did see one incident when I was in Leicester for 4 years - should I decide Leicester is a more bigoted place from that? Certainly not.
No, I treat my anecdotes as anecdotes, as I'm sure yours are.
My point stands. England is passing a law to make it illegal to assist migrants. To stop the lifeboats pulling drowning kids out of the water. Do I think that England is a more bigoted country towards migration than pro-migration Scotland? Doesn't the policy make that reality?
My son has just joined the RNLI and if you think they are going to let anyone drown then you are totally out of order and de facto attacking the RNLI service
My son will put his life on line to save life at sea and your political hatred disgusts me
Wowsers. I am not attacking your son you buffoon. I am attacking the law which makes his saving certain lives at sea a criminal offence.
It doesn’t. The government has said that isn’t the intention. The wording will get cleaned up.
By the opposition. Once the government have virtue signalled to their base that they are sympathetic to the endless "let them drown" comments that always get posted when the Nigel goes out on his dinghy.
You and I both know how bills gets drafted. This isn't a whoopsie.
Usually sloppily because they rely on committee to clean them up.
A general rule that I have found very useful in life is “never ascribe to malice what can satisfactorily be explained by incompetence”
Undoubtedly, but only as a general rule.
The textual changes are, erm, interesting. Especially the deletion of 'and for gain' in a critical clause. That's an active deletion.
Prediction - there will be violence tonight, that’s obvious
The combo of an England final, Wembley, plus a year of plague and lockdown, makes it inevitable. I can hear chants and singing in Camden already. People want to partayyy
However, if England win the violence will be glossed over. Expect terms like ‘boyish horseplay’, ‘a few arrests’, ‘high spirits’, and so forth. If England lose, there might be a couple of stabbings, there will definitely be an orgy of Guardian think-pieces about ‘the ugly side of Englishness’.
You have a very peculiar interest in football violence. It really is not big and it is not clever, and it really doesn't need to be glorified. Call it what it is, unacceptable criminality.
As a teenager in the dangerous world of 1970s stadium attendeeship, I only twice found myself enveloped by football hooliganism. At a West Brom v Birmingham City First Division game at St. Andrews in 1976 we were challenged by a Bluenose to show our scarves which were hidden in our coat pockets. One friend, an Evertonian showed his scarf and we were allowed on our way. Later that same season at the Hereford United v Blackpool Division 2 game at Edgar Street I found myself chased through the cattle market by hundred of tangerine wearing yobbos, hurling bricks and bottles. As I turned into the safety of Commercial Street, I understood that this was all too dangerous, and although I didn't realise it at the time, my long history of wokery began.
lol. I'm just stating a fact. This is not a "peculiar interest in football violence"
Weirdly, I may have been in the exact same stramash as you! Hereford V Blackpool
Do you remember the day Wolves came to town, and smashed it up?
I kept well clear of the Wolves match that same season. Legend has it that High Town was brutalised.
So. If I, innocently swimming off the coast of Kent, find another person in distress, and drag them to the shore, perform CPR and water them and keep them warm, I can be prosecuted? Unless they are a UK citizen. In which case I am a hero? I'd be in the tabloids either way.
It is nonsense
More likely if you were in a yacht in the channel and came across a dinghy full of asylum seekers and you rescued them, as per the International Law of the Sea, and then turned them in to the police in Dover, you would have a lot of explaining to do, it may involve a night in the cells until a solicitor could get you out. You would definately get arrested as you will ahve broken the law.
An unseaworthy dinghy crammed with asylum seekers adheres to the International Law of the Sea??
It doesn't matter what you are being rescued from, people have been rescued from rowing boats, surfboards, liferafts.
I often wonder whether any boris fanboys on PB will actually rescue any asylum seekers, or just condemn them to drown. I think us normal conscientious people deserve an answer to that question. (I won't mention names)
Your last sentence does not need a response from the vast majority of us who would rescue anyone at sea at anytime and anyplace
Indeed my son in laws father, as chief engineer on a trans Atlantic ship, took charge of a major rescue of crew from a sinking ship in mid Atlantic
I applaud both you and your relative, thank God some boris fanboys have a conscience.
Comments
Instances of domestic abuse increase 26% when England play and 38% if they lose.
#DomesticAbuse #DomesticViolence #EURO2020 https://twitter.com/NCDV_Official/status/1412819108337422340/photo/1
Say you were at the top of an 80ft block of flats and wanted to exit. Would you take the stairs/lift, or jump off?
FFS
@Big_G_NorthWales is correct that rescue organizations (and those who volunteer for them) will not in reality be prosecuted
That doesn't mean it's not a bad law. And by "bad", I don't mean it's intentions (stopping migrants illegally entering the country via small boats across the channel) are in some way wrong, I mean it is poorly drafted, and therefore inadvertantly criminalizes a lot of behavior.
Like with contracts, it's better to make sure the wording is in line with intentions, before they do into force.
So HMG are hugely incompetent. Nobody can be that incompetent. Can they?
THis raises two issues.
Insurance. When I sometimes did an outdoor activity voluntarily, we had insurance to cover liability for the association/group in questtion and its leaders. For instance if someone broke a leg and their insurers sued us. On one occasion, one group organizer tried to do without and tried to bounce us by volunteering us as leaders. He was furious when we refused and he had to replan.
Now that was civil liability. Not criminal. Which this will be.
And in practice. How do you tell a rubber boatload of people in mid-Channel from another boatload? Posh yachtie accents? Tough if they are not upper class. Brown skins? They might be from Malmesbury. Check their passports?
"Thank you, please go to that seat and strap in." ... "No, no good, sorry chum, back in you go".
And all that in the dark, in pourting rain and a Force 6 and higher?
don't swear at me either. We aren't all boris fanboys you know.
They are dancing in the streets of Wolverhampton
https://twitter.com/jonnygeller/status/1414139371452780545?s=21
And I actually think Macron is worse than Johnson, and that’s not said out of starry-eyed admiration for A Johnson. They’re both empty populists out for themselves and their mates, but Macron’s charm and smoothness mean people are less wary of him.
As @rcs1000 confirms in reality this will not happen and the drafting may need amending
And when it gets amended? The opposition will condemn the bill. The opposition will propose an amendment so your son doesn't go to jail. Tory MPs, their pliant press and PB Clown Apologists like you will condemn them as being soft on migration
Don't forget that people have been propagandised against asylum seekers for so long that they believe the people your son would rescue from drowning are here to both take the jobs and sponge off benefits...
I'd like to set outside the actual immigrants for a moment, and consider the real criminals in this: the people who take money from the immigrants, then put them into unsuitable craft, often uncrewed, for journeys that kill many of them.
We need to really tackle the people smugglers, and that needs international action as their actions are international. Yet not much appears to be being done.
Personally, I'd like to cut the b******d's balls off, then throw them into the waters where they have committed so many innocents.
Nationally, we can strike at the modern slavers who take advantage of so many immigrants. A lifetime of indentured servitude washing cars or working in male brothels should be a suitable sentence for them...
As there's nothing of any import happening this evening, there'll no doubt be plenty of time and consideration for both the Moldovan and Bulgarian elections - or perhaps not.
Not long back from Westfield where today's fashion is the "Three Lions" shirt (it would seem). I have to say huge kudos to Yo! Sushi who have used Covid to revolutionise the dining experience and it's so much better.
I remain a huge fan of the Katsu curry and the Japanese Fried Chicken.
Some gaps higher up and at the back of the shopping "centre" but needless to say many of the big names were still doing well enough.
My bet on Djokovic winning 3-0 in sets was a right loser - whether Berrettini has the temperament to take the match to a final set I don't know but he's given it a good go.
It was good to see the English Derby and Oaks winners win so well overnight - the fact it was the Belmont Oaks and Belmont Derby they won shouldn't be sniffed at (nor indeed the combined winning pots of £660k).
(But not in Raith)
They are closed to those who are not legal. So don't try. Its very dangerous. Its very, very irresponsible.
If we were next to a war torn country, fine. We are next to France.
Maybe check out @rcs1000 comments
https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/1414170366033989632
almost like they wrote two essays in favour of masks and anti masks and can’t decide which one to use
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1414176995966169088
About a quarter of the people on the planet speak English. Should they all come here via dinghies?
Wording that should be in the bill before it goes to parliament.
The government have drafted this bill in response to RNLI rescues of drowning asylum seekers. Hence explicitly making such actions illegal.
Stick a lifeboat next to drowning migrants and of course they pull them out of the sea. But as others have pointed out it becomes very difficult to operate and put yourself into a position where your actions lay yourselves open to prosecution and the organisation with it. They won't be there at all - which is what smirking Priti wants.
I have to laugh. A big pile on by you and others earlier for me being what was it, blinded by my hatred of Boris? And here you are blinded by your love of Boris to refuse to believe they are literally proposing a law to make his bravery a crime.
Remember the flak the RNLI has already taken in general for rescuing migrants, teaching foreigners with beown skins to swim (ironically enough I now realise).
Also we need to look much more closely at the hand France is playing here. What is life like for these people there, really?
Many of those wailing about the plight of boat migrants are remainers and as such France is above any criticism. I imagine, however, that precisely zero tears are shed for those leaving France by a government under severe pressure from a huge far right threat.
That is at least part of the agenda here, but of course it is totally ignored by those for whom the only fault lies in Britain.
Unless they are a UK citizen. In which case I am a hero?
I'd be in the tabloids either way.
Boris clearly shat his pants yet again. He is Prime Minister, but utterly incapable of taking responsibility for anything.
As a teenager in the dangerous world of 1970s stadium attendeeship, I only twice found myself enveloped by football hooliganism. At a West Brom v Birmingham City First Division game at St. Andrews in 1976 we were challenged by a Bluenose to show our scarves which were hidden in our coat pockets. One friend, an Evertonian showed his scarf and we were allowed on our way. Later that same season at the Hereford United v Blackpool Division 2 game at Edgar Street I found myself chased through the cattle market by hundred of tangerine wearing yobbos, hurling bricks and bottles. As I turned into the safety of Commercial Street, I understood that this was all too dangerous, and although I didn't realise it at the time, my long history of wokery began.
Last 7 days
31772
32367
35707
32551
32548
28773
27334
Week average daily: 27244
Daily Figure Delta from Monday to Sunday: 4438
Previous 7 before
24248
24885
27125
27989
26068
20479
22868
Week average daily: 21193
Daily Figure Delta from Monday to Sunday: 1380
Previous 7 days before that
14876
18270
15810
16703
16135
11625
10633
Week average daily: 13132
Daily Figure Delta from Monday to Sunday: 4243
There is a massive jump between the Sunday reported figure and the subsequent Monday. Every Sunday has a lower Cases figure than midweek.
There is a dispute over the interpretation of the word “facilitating” in draft legislation.
That’s the sort of thing that gets worked out in committee or in the Lords. The government has clearly stated that it is not their intention to criminalise sea rescue. I would expect them (if no other solution can be found) to repeat that in the House of Commons during passage of the bill, which would allow the courts to use that as a clear expression of parliament’s intention.
Examples of the issues -
https://www.ft.com/content/f92e073e-c3f5-4902-845e-0b07a1dfcf69
https://fundraising.co.uk/2019/09/17/how-the-mail-on-sundays-criticism-of-rnli-backfired/
THere's no doubt this is part of a very complex issue, but the RNLI is certainly piggy in the middle.
Apparently.
DNA on the database?
Yacht confiscated?
https://twitter.com/DaftLimmy/status/1414260247041134604
https://twitter.com/benjamincohen/status/1414259901925310468?s=20
Lots of anti-government campaigners have said that the government is nasty.
The government has said that the accusations are not true because that’s not their intention.
The RNLI has said “whatever, we are going to rescue anyone who needs help”. They haven’t got involved in the politics
You and I both know how bills gets drafted. This isn't a whoopsie.
They they speak English is not justification to come to the UK.
A very small problem
1 - Why is this export of apples to India suddenly a big issue wrt to Trade Deals. Can anyone explain why they were banned before? Poland and others have been exporting 10s of thousands of tons a year.
Presentational pratfall?
2 - Any recommendations for a decent film as a alternative to this effing football game? Debate (here and elsewhere) seems to be contempt/confrontation-driven. No longer interested.
Weirdly, I may have been in the exact same stramash as you! Hereford V Blackpool
Do you remember the day Wolves came to town, and smashed it up?
a) are generally (90%) going maskless;
b) lack imagination in choice of song;
c) are dreadful singers;
d) are very diverse.
I often wonder whether any boris fanboys on PB will actually rescue any asylum seekers, or just condemn them to drown. I think us normal conscientious people deserve an answer to that question. (I won't mention names)
Will normal conscientious people be doing today?
Vintage cars driving around with horns and vuvuzelas and England flags
Only that will stop the drownings.
We should bring in our fair share of asylum seekers from safe and legal routes, not via a Darwinian "if you don't die getting here first" process.
He was factually incorrect.
https://twitter.com/LiamKirkaldy_/status/1414145242576662528
I meant if you were in the yacht in question...
A general rule that I have found very useful in life is “never ascribe to malice what can satisfactorily be explained by incompetence”
But you really should put a health warning on that clip
Indeed my son in laws father, as chief engineer on a trans Atlantic ship, took charge of a major rescue of crew from a sinking ship in mid Atlantic
Their intentions are to criminalise people smuggling, removing the requirement to prove "for profit" and simply make people smuggling a crime. The intention is not to criminalise the RNLI and its just petty pointscoring politics to suggest it is.
The textual changes are, erm, interesting. Especially the deletion of 'and for gain' in a critical clause. That's an active deletion.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2021/07/priti-patel-making-it-illegal-uk-rescue-asylum-seekers