Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As LAB members prepare to vote a reminder of the demographi

SystemSystem Posts: 12,837
edited August 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As LAB members prepare to vote a reminder of the demographic splits at GE2015


Ipsos MORI

Read the full story here


«13456789

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,215
    edited August 2016
    Have Ipsos Mori done a similar one for Brexit ?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,633
    Second like Britain. Or China.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,465
    Third, like Moldova in the Taekwondo. We sort of hope.

    (Although Aaron Cook's story is certainly one of the plucky Brit underdog fighting against the system.)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,441
    FPT: Is being murdered by a terrorist worse than being murdered by a regular murderer ?
  • MontyHallMontyHall Posts: 226
    @SeanT

    FPT

    I think you are misunderstanding where I am coming from, I certainly am not pretending all is well, far from it. I think the fact that it is not terrorism makes it far worse for western society
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,215
    Pulpstar said:

    FPT: Is being murdered by a terrorist worse than being murdered by a regular murderer ?

    No. Is the same principle as if someone kicks me in the head to steal my phone or if someone kicks me in the head because I look like a Muslim.

    Both are going to hurt me the same, though I do love my phone and would struggle without it.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 41,052
    Pulpstar said:

    FPT: Is being murdered by a terrorist worse than being murdered by a regular murderer ?

    Yes and no, people who are sick in the head are more likely to be attracted to sick ideology that instructs them to kill people. Though I'm not sure that calling probable terrorism something else is a good idea. I have read the information black out arguments, but when the government lies to the people or there is a perception they are being less than truthful then it can lead to the rise of parties like the FN or UKIP, who won't adhere to such sensitivities.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,172
    edited August 2016
    SeanT said:

    One extraordinary line in that Daily Mail article speaks for itself



    "A source told French station BFMTV that terrorism has been ruled out, however they are unsure of the man's motive"

    But he is definitely a nutter....probably known locally as Dave.

    Its amazing how the authorities can make some immediate statements about difficult and complex issues with such certainty and others not.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,640
    From now on a murder will only be counted as terrorism if the authorities receive a notarised letter from the head of IS or Al-Qaeda confirming the attackers standing membership of said organisation. Any statements, flags, chants, past actions or criminal convictions will count for nothing.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    The fan dance continues:

    http://www.dw.com/en/turkey-our-goal-is-to-join-the-eu-by-2023/a-19486473
  • MontyHallMontyHall Posts: 226
    edited August 2016
    SeanT said:

    MontyHall:

    "Such blurred lines nowadays its tricky to define either way really. I don't think we can say every attack by a muslim shouting muslim stuff is "terrorism" though can we? Religious hatred maybe a better term.

    Calling it terrorism when its lone wolf seems over the top, plus it gives apologists the chance to pretend its nothing to worry about by lefty style mocking attempts at ironic humour"

    ***

    So we must clearly lie to the people, and indulge in a bizarre and collective act of denial, lest we give lefty comics the chance to fashion some ironic humour?

    That's the main worry now. Ironic humour from Mark Steel or Bill Bailey. Not terror. No. Bill Bailey.

    No I think you are misunderstanding me again. I think we are in a terrible place, I am very pessimistic about it, and some of the attacks (Bataclan, Nice, 7/7, 911) are obviously terrorism, but not every single attack inspired by religion is

    In the 80s there were terrorist attacks from the IRA, and there were fights in London pubs between Irishmen and Englishmen, but not both were terrorism.

    Maybe I am not making myself clear, but if there were no ISIS, Al Qaeda etc, there would still be these religious assaults, and they wouldn't be called terrorism. But because there is ISIS, we call them terrorism if you get my drift. We suspect they only occur because of ISIS, but I think they would occur anyway
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,172
    edited August 2016
    glw said:

    From now on a murder will only be counted as terrorism if the authorities receive a notarised letter from the head of IS or Al-Qaeda confirming the attackers standing membership of said organisation. Any statements, flags, chants, past actions or criminal convictions will count for nothing.

    Not good enough, need a second signature, plus recent utility bill and copy of passport from said ISIS officials.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''Its amazing how the authorities can make some immediate statements about difficult and complex issues with such certainty and others not. ''

    It's interesting that in the eyes of some the alleged killer of Jo Cox was not a 'lone nutter' but a person motivated by the atmosphere created by the leave campaign.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,733
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    FPT: Is being murdered by a terrorist worse than being murdered by a regular murderer ?

    No. Is the same principle as if someone kicks me in the head to steal my phone or if someone kicks me in the head because I look like a Muslim.

    Both are going to hurt me the same, though I do love my phone and would struggle without it.
    Anti-terrorist advice - ensure you make regular backups of your phone!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,662
    edited August 2016
    MontyHall said:


    Maybe I am not making myself clear, but if there were no ISIS, Al Qaeda etc, there would still be these religious assaults, and they wouldn't be called terrorism. But because there is ISIS, we call them terrorism if you get my drift. We suspect they only occur because of ISIS, but I think they would occur anyway

    They would still occur anyway amongst the followers of a specific religion because...?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 41,052
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    FPT: Is being murdered by a terrorist worse than being murdered by a regular murderer ?

    No. Is the same principle as if someone kicks me in the head to steal my phone or if someone kicks me in the head because I look like a Muslim.

    Both are going to hurt me the same, though I do love my phone and would struggle without it.
    The result may be the same, but the motivation is different. Petty theft and religious hatred have a different set of motivations and origins. One comes from poverty, the other from poor education plus radicalisation. In order to combat both we cannot apply the same solutions. That's what the solution is, prevention.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,662
    SeanT said:

    Perhaps we should call it *religious terrorism*? Does that work?

    I think Monty's objection is the level of organisation involved in a terrorist plot versus a lone wolf. In which case the obvious answer is to add the qualifier 'organised terrorism' when talking about the IRA, Al Qaeda, etc.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,662
    MaxPB said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    FPT: Is being murdered by a terrorist worse than being murdered by a regular murderer ?

    No. Is the same principle as if someone kicks me in the head to steal my phone or if someone kicks me in the head because I look like a Muslim.

    Both are going to hurt me the same, though I do love my phone and would struggle without it.
    The result may be the same, but the motivation is different. Petty theft and religious hatred have a different set of motivations and origins. One comes from poverty, the other from poor education plus radicalisation. In order to combat both we cannot apply the same solutions. That's what the solution is, prevention.
    The scarier form of religious hatred is that which comes from good education plus fanatical belief. How do you combat that?
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    FFS you're all being idiots. The precise point of terrorism, its sole value as it word, is that it must not be defined, allowing its use as high-value transferable negative particle for denigrating those we wish to destroy.
  • MontyHallMontyHall Posts: 226
    williamglenn said:

    SeanT said:

    Perhaps we should call it *religious terrorism*? Does that work?

    I think Monty's objection is the level of organisation involved in a terrorist plot versus a lone wolf. In which case the obvious answer is to add the qualifier 'organised terrorism' when talking about the IRA, Al Qaeda, etc.
    Yes maybe I am just being pedantic. I am certainly not trying to say all is well and Islam is a religion of peace etc.

    I actually think the lone wolf attacks that aren't organised by terror groups, the ones that I would call Religious Hatred rather than terrorism could be more worrying than ISIS as we will probably destroy that group. When I said it is "life" rather than "terrorism" I wasn't saying that in a good way, I think its a disaster.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Afternoon all.

    Must be the liquid lunch or something, but can’t make head nor tail of the thread. What does it represent? - TIA.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 41,052
    williamglenn said:

    MaxPB said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    FPT: Is being murdered by a terrorist worse than being murdered by a regular murderer ?

    No. Is the same principle as if someone kicks me in the head to steal my phone or if someone kicks me in the head because I look like a Muslim.

    Both are going to hurt me the same, though I do love my phone and would struggle without it.
    The result may be the same, but the motivation is different. Petty theft and religious hatred have a different set of motivations and origins. One comes from poverty, the other from poor education plus radicalisation. In order to combat both we cannot apply the same solutions. That's what the solution is, prevention.
    The scarier form of religious hatred is that which comes from good education plus fanatical belief. How do you combat that?
    The Anjem Choudary problem. Nothing that would be politically viable can be done. The solution has always been to make it difficult to be a fundamentalist in the UK. Ban halal slaughter and importation of halal meat, close any mosque receiving funds from overseas or linked to radical preachers, close all Islamic schools and even the equivalent of Sunday school, ban the burka etc... It's not an easy path, but eventually enough people who want to live a fundamentalist lifestyle which is incompatible with our secular values would choose to leave the country and move to one where it is acceptable to live in the manner they want.

    As I said, the political will to do it doesn't exist and in the short to medium term it would create a lot of animosity and probably increase terrorist attacks.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    MontyHall said:

    williamglenn said:

    SeanT said:

    Perhaps we should call it *religious terrorism*? Does that work?

    I think Monty's objection is the level of organisation involved in a terrorist plot versus a lone wolf. In which case the obvious answer is to add the qualifier 'organised terrorism' when talking about the IRA, Al Qaeda, etc.
    Yes maybe I am just being pedantic. I am certainly not trying to say all is well and Islam is a religion of peace etc.

    I actually think the lone wolf attacks that aren't organised by terror groups, the ones that I would call Religious Hatred rather than terrorism could be more worrying than ISIS as we will probably destroy that group. When I said it is "life" rather than "terrorism" I wasn't saying that in a good way, I think its a disaster.

    The terror attacks embolden the religious bigots and psycopaths. They all feed off each other. I get the point you are making, though. These attacks occured before the terrorism we are now living through.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,215
    SimonStClare said:

    Afternoon all.

    Must be the liquid lunch or something, but can’t make head nor tail of the thread. What does it represent? - TIA.

    The Ipsos Mori table on top is how country voted in the 2015 General election.

    The table below is the make up the voters in the Labour leadership election last year.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,441
    edited August 2016
    Terror: 'This is a strong type of fear that happens when something bad is happening, but you can't see the cause of it or understand what is happening. It is intense, painful, and a constant torment. Terror is the emotion you feel when you're running from something chasing you in a nightmare, or that a protagonist in a horror series might feel if they're aware the monster's around, but not sure where. Terror is related to words like panic, torment, fear (if strong), paranoia, dread (if strong), scare, and fright. Use words like these if your protagonist is experiencing something frightening, but cannot understand or see the cause of it.'

    It bugs me that the word has been coopted to mean violence linked to a political or religous motive ;)
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    The Krauts have a plan.

    http://www.dw.com/en/german-interior-ministers-call-for-partial-burqa-ban/a-19487376
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,733
    MaxPB said:

    williamglenn said:

    MaxPB said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    FPT: Is being murdered by a terrorist worse than being murdered by a regular murderer ?

    No. Is the same principle as if someone kicks me in the head to steal my phone or if someone kicks me in the head because I look like a Muslim.

    Both are going to hurt me the same, though I do love my phone and would struggle without it.
    The result may be the same, but the motivation is different. Petty theft and religious hatred have a different set of motivations and origins. One comes from poverty, the other from poor education plus radicalisation. In order to combat both we cannot apply the same solutions. That's what the solution is, prevention.
    The scarier form of religious hatred is that which comes from good education plus fanatical belief. How do you combat that?
    The Anjem Choudary problem. Nothing that would be politically viable can be done. The solution has always been to make it difficult to be a fundamentalist in the UK. Ban halal slaughter and importation of halal meat, close any mosque receiving funds from overseas or linked to radical preachers, close all Islamic schools and even the equivalent of Sunday school, ban the burka etc... It's not an easy path, but eventually enough people who want to live a fundamentalist lifestyle which is incompatible with our secular values would choose to leave the country and move to one where it is acceptable to live in the manner they want.

    As I said, the political will to do it doesn't exist and in the short to medium term it would create a lot of animosity and probably increase terrorist attacks.

    Good luck getting any of that past the paracitical 'human rights' courts, that seem to thrive on tolerating the intolerant these days.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Pulpstar said:

    Terror: 'This is a strong type of fear that happens when something bad is happening, but you can't see the cause of it or understand what is happening. It is intense, painful, and a constant torment. Terror is the emotion you feel when you're running from something chasing you in a nightmare, or that a protagonist in a horror series might feel if they're aware the monster's around, but not sure where. Terror is related to words like panic, torment, fear (if strong), paranoia, dread (if strong), scare, and fright. Use words like these if your protagonist is experiencing something frightening, but cannot understand or see the cause of it.'

    It bugs me that the word has been coopted to mean violence linked to a political or religous motive ;)

    If memory serves there was a legal definition set down in an Act of Parliament. I think it went something along the lines of "The use or threat of use of violence to achieve a political goal". There might have been a bit more to it than that but I think I have got the essentials.

    That definition was drafted in the times of PIRA and terrorism linked to Ireland but it probably holds good for the people we now have to contend with. The essence seems to be the motivation, they why not the what.
  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    just when you think peak guardian has already been reached:

    "Here was the football equivalent of the post-modern classic that begins: “You are about to begin reading Italo Calvino’s new novel, If on a Winter’s Night a Traveller …” The message from Arsène Wenger’s Arsenal was that their followers were about to begin a new season of watching Arsène Wenger’s Arsenal, with everything that has come to mean since they last won the league 12 years ago."
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 62,633
    SeanT said:

    williamglenn said:

    SeanT said:

    Perhaps we should call it *religious terrorism*? Does that work?

    I think Monty's objection is the level of organisation involved in a terrorist plot versus a lone wolf. In which case the obvious answer is to add the qualifier 'organised terrorism' when talking about the IRA, Al Qaeda, etc.
    Perhaps.

    The trouble is, ISIS have explicitly called for lone wolf attacks, as part of their global terror strategy. Solitary nutters are what they WANT, as these guys could turn on us any time, any place: increasing the terror quotient.

    Perhaps we could call the bigger plots "direct terrorism", and the small scale attacks "religious terror"? Given that the knifeman in Strasbourg shouted Allahu Akhbar it is difficult to *rule out* a religious element.
    Maybe we should be encouraging Christians, agnostics, atheists and Jews in the Middle East to wander up to the nearest Mosque and blow themselves up.

    The problem is that - without the promise of an afterlife - what's in it for the atheists, agnostics and Jews?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,733
    Mr Dancer, you were right yesterday when you said the most absurd event in the Olympics is the race walking. Three hours of desparately trying not to run is just silly!
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    Off topic: the City is doomed.

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/capital-flight-london-economy-brexit-business
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,441
    John_M said:

    The Krauts have a plan.

    http://www.dw.com/en/german-interior-ministers-call-for-partial-burqa-ban/a-19487376

    Personally I see a hijab as religous freedom of expression (In the same way as a jewish skull cap, sikh turban or christian cross on a chain), but a niqab/burka as one of oppression/security risk.
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    glw said:

    From now on a murder will only be counted as terrorism if the authorities receive a notarised letter from the head of IS or Al-Qaeda confirming the attackers standing membership of said organisation. Any statements, flags, chants, past actions or criminal convictions will count for nothing.

    Is believing in a religion now judged to be a mental illness?
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    John_M said:

    The Krauts have a plan.

    http://www.dw.com/en/german-interior-ministers-call-for-partial-burqa-ban/a-19487376

    Why not have mandatory topless bathing for all beaches?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,441
    Sandpit said:

    Mr Dancer, you were right yesterday when you said the most absurd event in the Olympics is the race walking. Three hours of desparately trying not to run is just silly!

    Race walkers walk at an astounding pace, a sub 40 minute 10k is good going even whilst running !
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 57,094
    rcs1000 said:

    SeanT said:

    williamglenn said:

    SeanT said:

    Perhaps we should call it *religious terrorism*? Does that work?

    I think Monty's objection is the level of organisation involved in a terrorist plot versus a lone wolf. In which case the obvious answer is to add the qualifier 'organised terrorism' when talking about the IRA, Al Qaeda, etc.
    Perhaps.

    The trouble is, ISIS have explicitly called for lone wolf attacks, as part of their global terror strategy. Solitary nutters are what they WANT, as these guys could turn on us any time, any place: increasing the terror quotient.

    Perhaps we could call the bigger plots "direct terrorism", and the small scale attacks "religious terror"? Given that the knifeman in Strasbourg shouted Allahu Akhbar it is difficult to *rule out* a religious element.
    Maybe we should be encouraging Christians, agnostics, atheists and Jews in the Middle East to wander up to the nearest Mosque and blow themselves up.

    The problem is that - without the promise of an afterlife - what's in it for the atheists, agnostics and Jews?
    Well at least they won't be plagued by lots of incompetent virgins.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,441
    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    glw said:

    From now on a murder will only be counted as terrorism if the authorities receive a notarised letter from the head of IS or Al-Qaeda confirming the attackers standing membership of said organisation. Any statements, flags, chants, past actions or criminal convictions will count for nothing.

    Is believing in a religion now judged to be a mental illness?
    Well...
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 41,052
    John_M said:

    Off topic: the City is doomed.

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/capital-flight-london-economy-brexit-business

    I tried to get through it but failed. It read like the longest ever way of saying, "it's not fair, the beastly northerners were mean to us".
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 41,052
    On a lighter note, given that the Queen is still head of state in Jamaica, can she award Using Bolt with a Knighthood? He definitely deserves one, 8 or 9 gold medals is an amazing achievement.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    John_M said:

    Off topic: the City is doomed.

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/capital-flight-london-economy-brexit-business

    Good.
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    John_M said:

    Off topic: the City is doomed.

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/capital-flight-london-economy-brexit-business

    Author, Nicolas Véron, is a senior fellow at Bruegel in Brussels which he co-founded. Bruegel is funded by EU member states etc.

    Why would he forecast a rosy future outside the EU?
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/19/labour-leadership-1000-councillors-sign-letter-backing-owen-smith
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,441
    edited August 2016
    MaxPB said:

    John_M said:

    Off topic: the City is doomed.

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/capital-flight-london-economy-brexit-business

    I tried to get through it but failed. It read like the longest ever way of saying, "it's not fair, the beastly northerners were mean to us".
    London, 22 matches; Britain 2 matches, England 2 matches.

    Probably a good indication of why brexit occurred...

    Addendum: Why is it that our gdp per cap is a fair chunk lower than Netherlands, Germany, Denmark - even though we have 'London'.

    Perhaps the economy will be rebalanced with Brexit, it is my big hope - even though it is a net loss overall.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    SouthamObserver said:

    MontyHall said:

    williamglenn said:

    SeanT said:

    Perhaps we should call it *religious terrorism*? Does that work?

    I think Monty's objection is the level of organisation involved in a terrorist plot versus a lone wolf. In which case the obvious answer is to add the qualifier 'organised terrorism' when talking about the IRA, Al Qaeda, etc.
    Yes maybe I am just being pedantic. I am certainly not trying to say all is well and Islam is a religion of peace etc.

    I actually think the lone wolf attacks that aren't organised by terror groups, the ones that I would call Religious Hatred rather than terrorism could be more worrying than ISIS as we will probably destroy that group. When I said it is "life" rather than "terrorism" I wasn't saying that in a good way, I think its a disaster.

    The terror attacks embolden the religious bigots and psycopaths. They all feed off each other. I get the point you are making, though. These attacks occured before the terrorism we are now living through.

    Have momentum had an effect for councillor candidate selections yet?
  • AramintaMoonbeamQCAramintaMoonbeamQC Posts: 4,010
    edited August 2016
    Manafort has resigned as Trump's campaign chair.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    John_M said:

    Off topic: the City is doomed.

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/capital-flight-london-economy-brexit-business

    Author, Nicolas Véron, is a senior fellow at Bruegel in Brussels which he co-founded. Bruegel is funded by EU member states etc.

    Why would he forecast a rosy future outside the EU?
    Look, Scott isn't here. I'm just helping him out. I only work here, I don't make the rules.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    Pulpstar said:

    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    glw said:

    From now on a murder will only be counted as terrorism if the authorities receive a notarised letter from the head of IS or Al-Qaeda confirming the attackers standing membership of said organisation. Any statements, flags, chants, past actions or criminal convictions will count for nothing.

    Is believing in a religion now judged to be a mental illness?
    Well...
    It's not an illness, per se. More a chronic condition.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    :lol:

    Rob Peyton
    The One-upmanship marathon @ThePoke #HipsterOlympicEvents https://t.co/ED4bwKUQeu
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    Just laid Trump @ 5.1
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    John_M said:

    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    John_M said:

    Off topic: the City is doomed.

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/capital-flight-london-economy-brexit-business

    Author, Nicolas Véron, is a senior fellow at Bruegel in Brussels which he co-founded. Bruegel is funded by EU member states etc.

    Why would he forecast a rosy future outside the EU?
    Look, Scott isn't here. I'm just helping him out. I only work here, I don't make the rules.
    I initially thought that this was from Pasty Scott as it was the usual blinkered guff from a left leaning publication. Some might call it vapid bilge.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 41,052
    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    John_M said:

    Off topic: the City is doomed.

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/capital-flight-london-economy-brexit-business

    I tried to get through it but failed. It read like the longest ever way of saying, "it's not fair, the beastly northerners were mean to us".
    London, 22 matches; Britain 2 matches, England 2 matches.

    Probably a good indication of why brexit occurred...

    Addendum: Why is it that our gdp per cap is a fair chunk lower than Netherlands, Germany, Denmark - even though we have 'London'.

    Perhaps the economy will be rebalanced with Brexit, it is my big hope - even though it is a net loss overall.
    Indeed.

    I'd guess that it is because we lack a middle manufacturing sector. We're decent at the lower end and excellent at the top, but do very little in between. People who have better skills than basic manufacturing but are not properly qualified to work on building fighter jets or luxury sports cars have very little to move up to which causes wages to stagnate. Indeed, we import a lot of our semi-manufactured goods from the nations you mention. Its something that needs addressing, and soon IMO.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,838
    John_M said:

    Off topic: the City is doomed.

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/capital-flight-london-economy-brexit-business

    A consistent narrative seems to be emerging from Remain advocates, now, which is that they respect the result, and we are leaving the EU, but leaving the single market would be a disaster, so should stay in the EEA, but this would be worse than staying in the EU because we wouldn't take back any control and might even be worse, so we should really leave the whole thing, which would be a disaster. Shame a 2nd referendum is off the cards for now.

    The line of attack of that argument is pretty clear to me.
  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,193
    AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

    Manafort has resigned as Trump's campaign chair.

    Is that good or bad for Trump?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 62,633
    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    williamglenn said:

    MaxPB said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    FPT: Is being murdered by a terrorist worse than being murdered by a regular murderer ?

    No. Is the same principle as if someone kicks me in the head to steal my phone or if someone kicks me in the head because I look like a Muslim.

    Both are going to hurt me the same, though I do love my phone and would struggle without it.
    The result may be the same, but the motivation is different. Petty theft and religious hatred have a different set of motivations and origins. One comes from poverty, the other from poor education plus radicalisation. In order to combat both we cannot apply the same solutions. That's what the solution is, prevention.
    The scarier form of religious hatred is that which comes from good education plus fanatical belief. How do you combat that?
    The Anjem Choudary problem. Nothing that would be politically viable can be done. The solution has always been to make it difficult to be a fundamentalist in the UK. Ban halal slaughter and importation of halal meat, close any mosque receiving funds from overseas or linked to radical preachers, close all Islamic schools and even the equivalent of Sunday school, ban the burka etc... It's not an easy path, but eventually enough people who want to live a fundamentalist lifestyle which is incompatible with our secular values would choose to leave the country and move to one where it is acceptable to live in the manner they want.

    As I said, the political will to do it doesn't exist and in the short to medium term it would create a lot of animosity and probably increase terrorist attacks.

    Good luck getting any of that past the paracitical 'human rights' courts, that seem to thrive on tolerating the intolerant these days.
    The problem is this: if I choose to cover my head going down the street - just as if I wish to ban breastfeeding in my restaurant - surely that is my concern.

    And do you really want to give the government the power to choose which religious meetings it considers appropriate?

    Paul_Bedfordshire made the point more articulately than me a few days ago: these powers that you give the government when it's your guys in control look scary when it's Jeremy Corbyn in power.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 41,052
    Casino_Royale said:

    John_M said:

    Off topic: the City is doomed.

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/capital-flight-london-economy-brexit-business

    A consistent narrative seems to be emerging from Remain advocates, now, which is that they respect the result, and we are leaving the EU, but leaving the single market would be a disaster, so should stay in the EEA, but this would be worse than staying in the EU because we wouldn't take back any control and might even be worse, so we should really leave the whole thing, which would be a disaster. Shame a 2nd referendum is off the cards for now.

    The line of attack of that argument is pretty clear to me.
    Indeed, it's a clear attempt to muddy the water. "If we're going to stay in the EEA, then why bother leaving at all", is what I've heard being repeated in City circles.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    williamglenn said:

    MaxPB said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    FPT: Is being murdered by a terrorist worse than being murdered by a regular murderer ?

    No. Is the same principle as if someone kicks me in the head to steal my phone or if someone kicks me in the head because I look like a Muslim.

    Both are going to hurt me the same, though I do love my phone and would struggle without it.
    The result may be the same, but the motivation is different. Petty theft and religious hatred have a different set of motivations and origins. One comes from poverty, the other from poor education plus radicalisation. In order to combat both we cannot apply the same solutions. That's what the solution is, prevention.
    The scarier form of religious hatred is that which comes from good education plus fanatical belief. How do you combat that?
    The Anjem Choudary problem. Nothing that would be politically viable can be done. The solution has always been to make it difficult to be a fundamentalist in the UK. Ban halal slaughter and importation of halal meat, close any mosque receiving funds from overseas or linked to radical preachers, close all Islamic schools and even the equivalent of Sunday school, ban the burka etc... It's not an easy path, but eventually enough people who want to live a fundamentalist lifestyle which is incompatible with our secular values would choose to leave the country and move to one where it is acceptable to live in the manner they want.

    As I said, the political will to do it doesn't exist and in the short to medium term it would create a lot of animosity and probably increase terrorist attacks.

    Good luck getting any of that past the paracitical 'human rights' courts, that seem to thrive on tolerating the intolerant these days.
    The problem is this: if I choose to cover my head going down the street - just as if I wish to ban breastfeeding in my restaurant - surely that is my concern.

    And do you really want to give the government the power to choose which religious meetings it considers appropriate?

    Paul_Bedfordshire made the point more articulately than me a few days ago: these powers that you give the government when it's your guys in control look scary when it's Jeremy Corbyn in power.
    The Germans have a good balance, the French go too far.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/19/europe/germany-veil-ban/index.html
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    williamglenn said:

    MaxPB said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    FPT: Is being murdered by a terrorist worse than being murdered by a regular murderer ?

    No. Is the same principle as if someone kicks me in the head to steal my phone or if someone kicks me in the head because I look like a Muslim.

    Both are going to hurt me the same, though I do love my phone and would struggle without it.
    The result may be the same, but the motivation is different. Petty theft and religious hatred have a different set of motivations and origins. One comes from poverty, the other from poor education plus radicalisation. In order to combat both we cannot apply the same solutions. That's what the solution is, prevention.
    The scarier form of religious hatred is that which comes from good education plus fanatical belief. How do you combat that?
    The Anjem Choudary problem. Nothing that would be politically viable can be done. The solution has always been to make it difficult to be a fundamentalist in the UK. Ban halal slaughter and importation of halal meat, close any mosque receiving funds from overseas or linked to radical preachers, close all Islamic schools and even the equivalent of Sunday school, ban the burka etc... It's not an easy path, but eventually enough people who want to live a fundamentalist lifestyle which is incompatible with our secular values would choose to leave the country and move to one where it is acceptable to live in the manner they want.

    As I said, the political will to do it doesn't exist and in the short to medium term it would create a lot of animosity and probably increase terrorist attacks.

    Good luck getting any of that past the paracitical 'human rights' courts, that seem to thrive on tolerating the intolerant these days.
    The problem is this: if I choose to cover my head going down the street - just as if I wish to ban breastfeeding in my restaurant - surely that is my concern.

    And do you really want to give the government the power to choose which religious meetings it considers appropriate?

    Paul_Bedfordshire made the point more articulately than me a few days ago: these powers that you give the government when it's your guys in control look scary when it's Jeremy Corbyn in power.
    Wittering on about burqas is classic displacement activity.

    We are dealing with a new phenomenon where some portion of our Muslim immigrants are becoming less, not more, integrated. There are no glib answers to this issue. I think Mr Bedfordshire and Ms Cyclefree have articulated some good ideas, as you say.
  • AramintaMoonbeamQCAramintaMoonbeamQC Posts: 4,010
    ToryJim said:

    AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

    Manafort has resigned as Trump's campaign chair.

    Is that good or bad for Trump?
    Hard to say - Manafort was a hugely experienced lobbyist/consultant but has been outed as having substantial links with Ukrainian and Russian politics, which was less than desirable for the Trump campaign.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    Casino_Royale said:

    John_M said:

    Off topic: the City is doomed.

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/capital-flight-london-economy-brexit-business

    A consistent narrative seems to be emerging from Remain advocates, now, which is that they respect the result, and we are leaving the EU, but leaving the single market would be a disaster, so should stay in the EEA, but this would be worse than staying in the EU because we wouldn't take back any control and might even be worse, so we should really leave the whole thing, which would be a disaster. Shame a 2nd referendum is off the cards for now.

    The line of attack of that argument is pretty clear to me.
    There's the old quip that Prussia was an army in possession of a state, rather than the other way round. Substitute 'financial sector' and 'UK'.

    If this narrative about the City is correct, it should be seen as a huge strategic weakness that must be addressed. We have seen what happens with banks that are too big to fail. It's even worse if that applies to an entire sector.

    I agree with your interpretation of the general line, but I think it shows how dangerously ill-balanced the UK economy is, despite much talk of 'rebalancing'.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited August 2016
    In that Prospect article we have the following sentence.

    "To be sure, London is set to remain the largest financial centre in EMEA for the foreseeable future. It is currently so dominant that it will presumably take a very long time for any of its regional competitors to surpass it."

    I mean, WTF. The City is declining. Possibly. At some time in the future. In a galaxy far, far away.

  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    John_M said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    williamglenn said:

    MaxPB said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    FPT: Is being murdered by a terrorist worse than being murdered by a regular murderer ?

    No. Is the same principle as if someone kicks me in the head to steal my phone or if someone kicks me in the head because I look like a Muslim.
    overseas or linked to radical preachers, close all Islamic schools and even the equivalent of Sunday school, ban the burka etc... It's not an easy path, but eventually enough people who want to live a fundamentalist lifestyle which is incompatible with our secular values would choose to leave the country and move to one where it is acceptable to live in the manner they want.

    As I said, the political will to do it doesn't exist and in the short to medium term it would create a lot of animosity and probably increase terrorist attacks.

    Good luck getting any of that past the paracitical 'human rights' courts, that seem to thrive on tolerating the intolerant these days.
    The problem is this: if I choose to cover my head going down the street - just as if I wish to ban breastfeeding in my restaurant - surely that is my concern.

    And do you really want to give the government the power to choose which religious meetings it considers appropriate?

    Paul_Bedfordshire made the point more articulately than me a few days ago: these powers that you give the government when it's your guys in control look scary when it's Jeremy Corbyn in power.
    Wittering on about burqas is classic displacement activity.

    We are dealing with a new phenomenon where some portion of our Muslim immigrants are becoming less, not more, integrated. There are no glib answers to this issue. I think Mr Bedfordshire and Ms Cyclefree have articulated some good ideas, as you say.
    Their not even immigrants anymore we are talking about third generation Britons feeling no affinity to Britain at all.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,955
    The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia wrote a long detailed report in 2014 on the rise in attacks on Jews across countries in the EU. There were a variety of perpetrators but the single biggest group responsible for attacks was Muslims. There have been similar reports since then in Germany and France and elsewhere. An uncomfortable fact for all those thinking that one can lump together all minority groups as oppressed victims. Or that being a victim somehow makes it impossible for one also to be a perpetrator.

    This may not be terrorism in the conventional sense but for those who are the victims of it it is certainly terror, a sort of low level terror, worrying about being out in public while wearing items denoting their religion or worrying about security at schools or places of worship etc.

    I never saw guards outside Jewish schools or places of culture or synagogues when I was growing up in North London. I do now. This is not a development for the better. The virus of anti-Semitism was never eliminated from Europe, even after the end of the war when all could see what such hatred could lead to. It has, I'm afraid, been given rocket boosters by the increase in the Muslim population in Western Europe and our craven refusal to confront and call out what Mehdi Hasan called in 2013 "our dirty little secret. You could call it the banality of Muslim anti-Semitism."
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,838
    @JohnM - I think at some point public opinion will catch up with taking further cultural measures against Islamic fundamentalism and, like Brexit, they will probably do so before our political masters.

    However you cut it, wearing full face veils is an issue. Yes, I know, Balaclavas, motorcycle helmets and grown-ups dressed as a giant Mickey Mouse but the big issue here is a cultural schism on our doorstep where some women are totally cut-off from our mainstream life.

    A line has to be drawn and I'd say that line is at fully covering all of your face in public as a matter of religion, which is against the most natural and human way of communicating, and a cultural choice (not a religious one) and in no way incompatible with Islam.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 62,633
    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    John_M said:

    Off topic: the City is doomed.

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/capital-flight-london-economy-brexit-business

    I tried to get through it but failed. It read like the longest ever way of saying, "it's not fair, the beastly northerners were mean to us".
    London, 22 matches; Britain 2 matches, England 2 matches.

    Probably a good indication of why brexit occurred...

    Addendum: Why is it that our gdp per cap is a fair chunk lower than Netherlands, Germany, Denmark - even though we have 'London'.

    Perhaps the economy will be rebalanced with Brexit, it is my big hope - even though it is a net loss overall.
    Indeed.

    I'd guess that it is because we lack a middle manufacturing sector. We're decent at the lower end and excellent at the top, but do very little in between. People who have better skills than basic manufacturing but are not properly qualified to work on building fighter jets or luxury sports cars have very little to move up to which causes wages to stagnate. Indeed, we import a lot of our semi-manufactured goods from the nations you mention. Its something that needs addressing, and soon IMO.
    And we can't ignore our education system. That's been shitty too. We turn out too many people with A Levels in Media Studies, and two two few people with the skills needed to work in manufacturing businesses.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,301
    Good afternoon, everyone.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    williamglenn said:

    MaxPB said:



    The result may be the same, but the motivation is different. Petty theft and religious hatred have a different set of motivations and origins. One comes from poverty, the other from poor education plus radicalisation. In order to combat both we cannot apply the same solutions. That's what the solution is, prevention.

    The scarier form of religious hatred is that which comes from good education plus fanatical belief. How do you combat that?
    The Anjem Choudary problem. Nothing that would be politically viable can be done. The solution has always been to make it difficult to be a fundamentalist in the UK. Ban halal slaughter and importation of halal meat, close any mosque receiving funds from overseas or linked to radical preachers, close all Islamic schools and even the equivalent of Sunday school, ban the burka etc... It's not an easy path, but eventually enough people who want to live a fundamentalist lifestyle which is incompatible with our secular values would choose to leave the country and move to one where it is acceptable to live in the manner they want.

    As I said, the political will to do it doesn't exist and in the short to medium term it would create a lot of animosity and probably increase terrorist attacks.

    Good luck getting any of that past the paracitical 'human rights' courts, that seem to thrive on tolerating the intolerant these days.
    The problem is this: if I choose to cover my head going down the street - just as if I wish to ban breastfeeding in my restaurant - surely that is my concern.

    And do you really want to give the government the power to choose which religious meetings it considers appropriate?

    Paul_Bedfordshire made the point more articulately than me a few days ago: these powers that you give the government when it's your guys in control look scary when it's Jeremy Corbyn in power.
    Banning breastfeeding in your restaurant isn't just your concern; it's a matter of potential discrimination against customers.

    On clothing, I don't see why anyone covering the top of their head (or not) should matter to anyone and it's certainly not something the state should be involved in other than where there are genuine health and safety grounds (e.g. construction sites). Covering the face, on the other hand, is a different matter because as well as frequently being a tool of oppression, it also directly interferes with social interaction and literally places a division that should not exist between an individual and society at large.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''However you cut it, wearing full face veils is an issue. ''

    Its like wearing a brownshirt. Yes, its just a brown shirt. But it isn't.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited August 2016
    MaxPB said:

    Indeed, it's a clear attempt to muddy the water. "If we're going to stay in the EEA, then why bother leaving at all", is what I've heard being repeated in City circles.

    That's been my view all along. The EEA option seems to be the worst of both worlds. It's not even necessarily good for the City, given that we'd be heavily saddled with EU financial regulation over which we had no say.

    Meanwhile, some interesting speculation on the Article 50 trigger date

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-19/u-k-said-to-see-brexit-most-likely-triggered-by-april-next-year

    No 10 have denied the story, though.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 41,052
    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    John_M said:

    Off topic: the City is doomed.

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/capital-flight-london-economy-brexit-business

    I tried to get through it but failed. It read like the longest ever way of saying, "it's not fair, the beastly northerners were mean to us".
    London, 22 matches; Britain 2 matches, England 2 matches.

    Probably a good indication of why brexit occurred...

    Addendum: Why is it that our gdp per cap is a fair chunk lower than Netherlands, Germany, Denmark - even though we have 'London'.

    Perhaps the economy will be rebalanced with Brexit, it is my big hope - even though it is a net loss overall.
    Indeed.

    I'd guess that it is because we lack a middle manufacturing sector. We're decent at the lower end and excellent at the top, but do very little in between. People who have better skills than basic manufacturing but are not properly qualified to work on building fighter jets or luxury sports cars have very little to move up to which causes wages to stagnate. Indeed, we import a lot of our semi-manufactured goods from the nations you mention. Its something that needs addressing, and soon IMO.
    And we can't ignore our education system. That's been shitty too. We turn out too many people with A Levels in Media Studies, and two two few people with the skills needed to work in manufacturing businesses.
    I think that's beginning to change now that fees are so high. I know a couple of my distant relatives are eschewing university, one had an apprenticeship with McLaren automotive in their production division. He's Indian as well so you can imagine the reaction from the extended family!
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,633
    edited August 2016
    Casino_Royale said:

    John_M said:

    Off topic: the City is doomed.

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/capital-flight-london-economy-brexit-business

    A consistent narrative seems to be emerging from Remain advocates, now, which is that they respect the result, and we are leaving the EU, but leaving the single market would be a disaster, so should stay in the EEA, but this would be worse than staying in the EU because we wouldn't take back any control and might even be worse, so we should really leave the whole thing, which would be a disaster. Shame a 2nd referendum is off the cards for now.

    The line of attack of that argument is pretty clear to me.
    A sober article as far as I can tell. Without any particular knowledge of the financial market in the UK, it seems plausible that the business which is in London because it's the regional centre for Europe will split from the business that is in London because it is the global centre of excellence for that product. And that the first type of business is at risk of drifting away from London to the EU because that's the market that's buying, as with anything else you might buy and sell. There doesn't appear to be any reason for "global centre of excellence" trade to increase just because "regional centre" business falls off. That being the case, there will be a decline. It's just a question of how much.

    Unless there are specific reasons to believe otherwise?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 41,052
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    MaxPB said:

    Indeed, it's a clear attempt to muddy the water. "If we're going to stay in the EEA, then why bother leaving at all", is what I've heard being repeated in City circles.

    That's been my view all along. The EEA option seems to be the worst of both worlds. It's not even necessarily good for the City, given that we'd be heavily saddled with EU financial regulation over which we had no say.

    Meanwhile, some interesting speculation on the Article 50 trigger date

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-19/u-k-said-to-see-brexit-most-likely-triggered-by-april-next-year

    No 10 have denied the story, though.
    And you would never want to muddy the water would you, Richard! ;)
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''Covering the face, on the other hand, is a different matter because as well as frequently being a tool of oppression.''

    After (presumably muslim?) women in Syria burned their face veils when ISIS left, its quite clear that this is an extremist political garment and should be banned in public.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    MaxPB said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    MaxPB said:

    Indeed, it's a clear attempt to muddy the water. "If we're going to stay in the EEA, then why bother leaving at all", is what I've heard being repeated in City circles.

    That's been my view all along. The EEA option seems to be the worst of both worlds. It's not even necessarily good for the City, given that we'd be heavily saddled with EU financial regulation over which we had no say.

    Meanwhile, some interesting speculation on the Article 50 trigger date

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-19/u-k-said-to-see-brexit-most-likely-triggered-by-april-next-year

    No 10 have denied the story, though.
    And you would never want to muddy the water would you, Richard! ;)
    No, I like my water crystal-clear!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,838
    taffys said:

    ''Covering the face, on the other hand, is a different matter because as well as frequently being a tool of oppression.''

    After (presumably muslim?) women in Syria burned their face veils when ISIS left, its quite clear that this is an extremist political garment and should be banned in public.

    If women are being forced to wear it, that's an issue.

    If it's a women's free choice to wear it, and they are always choosing to do so in our society, then that's also an issue.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,498
    david_herdson said:

    Banning breastfeeding in your restaurant isn't just your concern; it's a matter of potential discrimination against customers.

    An establishment should have the right to ban such activities if it wishes to.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    taffys said:

    ''Covering the face, on the other hand, is a different matter because as well as frequently being a tool of oppression.''

    After (presumably muslim?) women in Syria burned their face veils when ISIS left, its quite clear that this is an extremist political garment and should be banned in public.

    Does the same principle apply to feminists burning their bras?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 62,633
    taffys said:

    In that Prospect article we have the following sentence.

    "To be sure, London is set to remain the largest financial centre in EMEA for the foreseeable future. It is currently so dominant that it will presumably take a very long time for any of its regional competitors to surpass it."

    I mean, WTF. The City is declining. Possibly. At some time in the future. In a galaxy far, far away.

    In the long run, I can't think of any economic bloc that had its financial centre outside its borders.

    The truth is that governments can, by petty meddling, move where the bulk of financial work takes place. Euro clearing is one part of that. Stricter requirements on funds who are domiciled in Luxemburg but managed in London is another. Requiring that primary government bond dealers are located inside the area that issues them is another. And, of course, the biggest tickets in financial services - those that come from the privatisation of state assets - will never be outsourced to something outside the bloc.

    We'd be very naive if we thought the EU was not going to be protectionist regarding where the bulk of financial markets work ends up.

    This is not the end of the City. We will adapt. But Europe is likely to end up with a much more fragmented place; there will be more investment bankers in Dublin, Frankfurt and Paris than previously.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Cyclefree said:

    The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia wrote a long detailed report in 2014 on the rise in attacks on Jews across countries in the EU. There were a variety of perpetrators but the single biggest group responsible for attacks was Muslims. There have been similar reports since then in Germany and France and elsewhere. An uncomfortable fact for all those thinking that one can lump together all minority groups as oppressed victims. Or that being a victim somehow makes it impossible for one also to be a perpetrator.

    This may not be terrorism in the conventional sense but for those who are the victims of it it is certainly terror, a sort of low level terror, worrying about being out in public while wearing items denoting their religion or worrying about security at schools or places of worship etc.

    I never saw guards outside Jewish schools or places of culture or synagogues when I was growing up in North London. I do now. This is not a development for the better. The virus of anti-Semitism was never eliminated from Europe, even after the end of the war when all could see what such hatred could lead to. It has, I'm afraid, been given rocket boosters by the increase in the Muslim population in Western Europe and our craven refusal to confront and call out what Mehdi Hasan called in 2013 "our dirty little secret. You could call it the banality of Muslim anti-Semitism."

    Given Medhi's views - he's not my voice of reason. I see this video no longer pops up via YouTube

    https://archive.org/details/MehdiHasan_201601

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,301
    Incidentally, here's a piece on woe, doom and death in the Medieval era:
    http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/everyday-medieval-terrors.html
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,562
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Incidentally, here's a piece on woe, doom and death in the Medieval era:
    http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/everyday-medieval-terrors.html

    just because it is Friday and you thought we all needed cheering up?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,301
    Miss Plato, disturbing that that video has been removed.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Talking about demographic things?
    https://twitter.com/EuropeDefence/status/766395824305795072
    I concur.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,172
    edited August 2016
    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mr Dancer, you were right yesterday when you said the most absurd event in the Olympics is the race walking. Three hours of desparately trying not to run is just silly!

    Race walkers walk at an astounding pace, a sub 40 minute 10k is good going even whilst running !
    Is it walking?...really....is it....
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37129047
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,441
    IanB2 said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Incidentally, here's a piece on woe, doom and death in the Medieval era:
    http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/everyday-medieval-terrors.html

    just because it is Friday and you thought we all needed cheering up?
    Friday prayer time :)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 62,633
    taffys said:

    ''However you cut it, wearing full face veils is an issue. ''

    Its like wearing a brownshirt. Yes, its just a brown shirt. But it isn't.

    As far as I'm concerned, if you want to wear Nazi uniforms in the street, or "Mohammed is a cock sucker" or whatever, that's up to you. It's not for the government to choose what forms of dress are acceptable.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,838
    rcs1000 said:

    taffys said:

    In that Prospect article we have the following sentence.

    "To be sure, London is set to remain the largest financial centre in EMEA for the foreseeable future. It is currently so dominant that it will presumably take a very long time for any of its regional competitors to surpass it."

    I mean, WTF. The City is declining. Possibly. At some time in the future. In a galaxy far, far away.

    In the long run, I can't think of any economic bloc that had its financial centre outside its borders.

    The truth is that governments can, by petty meddling, move where the bulk of financial work takes place. Euro clearing is one part of that. Stricter requirements on funds who are domiciled in Luxemburg but managed in London is another. Requiring that primary government bond dealers are located inside the area that issues them is another. And, of course, the biggest tickets in financial services - those that come from the privatisation of state assets - will never be outsourced to something outside the bloc.

    We'd be very naive if we thought the EU was not going to be protectionist regarding where the bulk of financial markets work ends up.

    This is not the end of the City. We will adapt. But Europe is likely to end up with a much more fragmented place; there will be more investment bankers in Dublin, Frankfurt and Paris than previously.
    So be it.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    John_M said:

    Off topic: the City is doomed.

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/capital-flight-london-economy-brexit-business

    I tried to get through it but failed. It read like the longest ever way of saying, "it's not fair, the beastly northerners were mean to us".
    London, 22 matches; Britain 2 matches, England 2 matches.

    Probably a good indication of why brexit occurred...

    Addendum: Why is it that our gdp per cap is a fair chunk lower than Netherlands, Germany, Denmark - even though we have 'London'.

    Perhaps the economy will be rebalanced with Brexit, it is my big hope - even though it is a net loss overall.
    Indeed.

    I'd guess that it is because we lack a middle manufacturing sector. We're decent at the lower end and excellent at the top, but do very little in between. People who have better skills than basic manufacturing but are not properly qualified to work on building fighter jets or luxury sports cars have very little to move up to which causes wages to stagnate. Indeed, we import a lot of our semi-manufactured goods from the nations you mention. Its something that needs addressing, and soon IMO.
    Perhaps one factor is the low skills of a significant chunk of the UK workforce. One of the biggest factors for that in my experience is that UK management seem too often to regard training as a cost not as an investment and, as ever, are too often focused on the short term.

    In a nutshell if the managers of UK companies can somehow be incentivised to look longer than their next bonus period, we might actually build a much more successful economy and a happier country.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 62,633
    tlg86 said:

    david_herdson said:

    Banning breastfeeding in your restaurant isn't just your concern; it's a matter of potential discrimination against customers.

    An establishment should have the right to ban such activities if it wishes to.
    Absolutely my establishment, my rules*.

    * I draw the line at "No Irish, no blacks, no dogs", but "No philosophers, no PB commentators" is probably OK.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,838
    rcs1000 said:

    taffys said:

    ''However you cut it, wearing full face veils is an issue. ''

    Its like wearing a brownshirt. Yes, its just a brown shirt. But it isn't.

    As far as I'm concerned, if you want to wear Nazi uniforms in the street, or "Mohammed is a cock sucker" or whatever, that's up to you. It's not for the government to choose what forms of dress are acceptable.
    It is and it isn't.

    If one person wore a Nazi uniform on the high street (and i expect his collar would be felt pretty soon anyway just for doing that) it can be shrugged off. If tens of thousands started doing it in cities and towns across Britain we'd probably expect the Government to take some action.

    This isn't a black and white issue you can boil down exclusively to individual choice (if, indeed, it is such a choice) numbers, volume and social effects do come into play, and what that says about our society.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''We'd be very naive if we thought the EU was not going to be protectionist regarding where the bulk of financial markets work ends up.''

    Let's face it. They were going to do that anyway. The EU cannot abide the City, whether we are in or out if it.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 62,633
    MikeK said:

    Talking about demographic things?
    https://twitter.com/EuropeDefence/status/766395824305795072
    I concur.

    Look at what happened when the UK had a genuinely open door immigration policy.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,662
    Casino_Royale said:

    John_M said:

    Off topic: the City is doomed.

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/capital-flight-london-economy-brexit-business

    A consistent narrative seems to be emerging from Remain advocates, now, which is that they respect the result, and we are leaving the EU, but leaving the single market would be a disaster, so should stay in the EEA, but this would be worse than staying in the EU because we wouldn't take back any control and might even be worse, so we should really leave the whole thing, which would be a disaster. Shame a 2nd referendum is off the cards for now.

    The line of attack of that argument is pretty clear to me.
    And what's your counterargument?
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited August 2016
    @Morris Dancer

    "However, imagine a world where there’s not only no NHS, there are no antibiotics at all."

    I don't have to imagine it Morris. This is the world I was born into and it got on pretty well. Mind you, there were kids without good shoes, or no shoes at all in East London. And for a few sixpences we followed the horses and collected their waste. Medically families were covered by private insurance companies for about a shilling a week. We survived and will survive even if modern civilizations collapse is total.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited August 2016
    ''As far as I'm concerned, if you want to wear Nazi uniforms in the street, or "Mohammed is a cock sucker" or whatever, that's up to you. It's not for the government to choose what forms of dress are acceptable. ''

    Well OK if you're going to allow all forms of political dress then fine. But in our current regime some forms of political dress are clearly more equal than others.

    That T shirt gives you a criminal record.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,838
    williamglenn said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    John_M said:

    Off topic: the City is doomed.

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/capital-flight-london-economy-brexit-business

    A consistent narrative seems to be emerging from Remain advocates, now, which is that they respect the result, and we are leaving the EU, but leaving the single market would be a disaster, so should stay in the EEA, but this would be worse than staying in the EU because we wouldn't take back any control and might even be worse, so we should really leave the whole thing, which would be a disaster. Shame a 2nd referendum is off the cards for now.

    The line of attack of that argument is pretty clear to me.
    And what's your counterargument?
    I don't agree leaving the single market would be a disaster and am increasingly relaxed about it.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    National - UPI/CVoter

    Clinton 50 .. Trump 46

    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/08/19/UPICVoter-poll-Hillary-Clinton-loses-two-points-to-Donald-Trump/6051471614583/?spt=sec&or=tn

    National - NBC

    Clinton 50 .. Trump 40

    http://www.nbcnews.com/card/poll-clinton-leads-trump-10-points-n633871
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,172
    edited August 2016
    British Moldovan #1 out the kicking in PJs event.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,955
    david_herdson said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    williamglenn said:

    MaxPB said:




    Banning breastfeeding in your restaurant isn't just your concern; it's a matter of potential discrimination against customers.

    On clothing, I don't see why anyone covering the top of their head (or not) should matter to anyone and it's certainly not something the state should be involved in other than where there are genuine health and safety grounds (e.g. construction sites). Covering the face, on the other hand, is a different matter because as well as frequently being a tool of oppression, it also directly interferes with social interaction and literally places a division that should not exist between an individual and society at large.
    The burqa is a calculated up yours to Western society. It is a calculated two fingers to how we live and interact in Western society. And Western society is perfectly entitled to reply by saying that this is not how we do things round here on the old "When in Rome" principle. And if people can't or won't understand that, can't or won't understand that there are certain social/cultural norms that one should abide by (like, for instance, not walking naked down a street) then laws become necessary. But that is a failure because as others have said using laws to enforce good manners and commonly understood and shared assumptions is authoritarian. But that is what happens when you have people in a society who don't share basic assumptions or, bluntly, are determined to confront them, using only the most convenient aspect of a society they despise (tolerance - always interpreted in one way in their favour) to undermine the basis on which that tolerance developed in the first place.

    It is no coincidence that the first thing religious bigots do when they get into power is to limit womens' freedoms. Control of clothing is one way of doing that. It's a point which an awful lot of men find hard to understand. I can remember the debates in the 1970s about trying to get it across to the police and others that how a woman was dressed was not some sort of excuse or justification for rape/assault. It was hard work getting people to realise that a woman's clothing should not be used to justify male misbehaviour. The burqa is the reverse of that: an assumption that a woman is somehow - by her dress - responsible for a man's behaviour, that a man is unable to control himself or be expected to behave in a civilised way and that women must be covered up to prevent incontinently lustful men from gazing on the possession of another.

This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025