politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Democrats move up sharply in the House majority betting af
Comments
-
They weren't enshrined in treaty, and we've seen how the EU has thrown those kind of commitments overboard in the pastwilliamglenn said:
There were worthwhile commitments to respect the UK's status outside the Eurozone in Cameron's deal. It's nobody's fault but your own and your fellow Brexiteers' that nationalistic hubris compelled you to reject it.Charles said:
That doesn't support your case.williamglenn said:
There certainly wasn't any secret about the political nature of the project.CD13 said:Mr Glenn,
"Why do you think Powell's support for Brexit in 1975 didn't help?"
Because few believed the Common Market would evolve into the EU as it now is. As ludicrous a concept as Turkey joining the EU is now.
The Mail says that political union won't come until we, the French and the Germans are ready for it.
The time is now. It seems as if the French and the Germans will acquiesce - or not be asked.
We were asked and aren't ready.
But given that Europe refused to give us worthwhile commitments to respect the fact we weren't ready then we had no choice but to leave.
That doesn't sound as if we were the equal partners that the Mail article implies.0 -
I find outright hostility towards a mainstream religion unpleasant, but I think that people are entitled to express such hostility.Casino_Royale said:
I’d say 3 is absolutely fair game. I personally find outright hostility to religions (e.g. by atheists) rather rude, but that’s almost always directed at Christianity.Sean_F said:
Islamophobia has three strands.CD13 said:Mr Eagles,
Islamophobia is now the term used, isn't it? A dislike of Islam is also a peculiar concoction. Like 'Christianophobia' - a morbid dislike of the religion - that would be an opinion which many atheists might take (including some of my friends).
It's only when it comes down to disliking or hating individuals because they are Christian or Muslim that it becomes a real problem. Perhaps a new term is needed?
1. Prejudice against Muslims,
2. Hostility to Islam
3. Hostility to political manifestations of Islam.
1. Should be condemned, 2 and 3 are fair game.
I am very close to (2) on Scientology and Jehovah’s Witness, both of which I find absolutely barking.0 -
And the Turks have got the message. Erdogan is moving away from any prospect of Turkey ever qualifying for EU membership.rcs1000 said:
Well, it's impossible for a country to join the EU without the approval of all members. This isn't something that could be "majoritied" away, because the EU is an institution created by a treaty between all its members.CD13 said:Mr Glenn,
I've no doubt that in 40 years time, if we stay in the EU, they will be saying "If you had read the EU treat properly, you would have seen that others countries, including Turkey were always likely to join. It was made quite clear."
So how do you deal with the fact that the Greeks and the Cypriots will never accept Turkey as a member?
I mean this in all seriousness. There's 2,000 years of history that can't be overcome.
And I suspect it's not just them. We also have a veto, and so do all the Eastern European countries. And France. Do you know how popular admitting Turkey is? The EU can't simply make countries sign an accession treaty. The only way Turkey would be admitted would be if it was sufficiently popular in all 27 remaining EU countries that no government saw electoral advantage in vetoing it.
For decades, British and EU politicians (and the US) wanted Turkey on-side in the Middle East. And that meant holding out the carrot of EU membership. But when push came to shove, it has never been a realistic prospect.0 -
No a collision of two metaphors.Casino_Royale said:
Is that a metaphor?Mexicanpete said:
If Corbyn does indeed want to be creamed with a landslide, Johnson will have to take enough moderate/remain Tories/ Labourites with him to breach the fixed term threshold.rkrkrk said:
Corbyn voted for an election when he was something like 20pts down last time. I dont think he'd hesitate to take on Boris.Mexicanpete said:
Under those circumstances it wouldn't be in his gift to call one. It would all depend on Corbyn's confidence -or lack of confidence.rkrkrk said:
Presumably then if it did happen, Boris would call an election pretty quickly.Torby_Fennel said:Of course the most significant thing to take away from what Grieve & Soubry (and I doubt they'd be the only two) are saying is that the moment Boris becomes PM is the moment that Conservative + DUP would no longer add up to a HOC majority.
0 -
I think it would kick off a revolt within the Party.Casino_Royale said:
The public would see it as an elitist conspiracy to shut down and silence debate.Sean_F said:
As I am no longer a Conservative party member, it's probably not for me to say who they should or should not expel.Mexicanpete said:
For a mainstream sociallly liberal Tory to cast his net towards the extreme right (not just of his party but to those with baser political instincts) for the sole purpose of realising his own ambitions, hell yes, that merits expulsion! Once out he could join Batten's UKIP where his rhetoric belongs.Sean_F said:
Howard Flight was treated unfairly. I wouldn't use that as a yardstick.The_Taxman said:
I remember when Howard Flight had the whip withdrawn by Michael Howard in the 2005 General Election campaign. My recollection is that Flight advocated cited reducing government spending (Given Brown had spending cuts in the guise of the Gershwin review it was hardly worth the sacking but the Tories had become too sensitive to criticism about their approach to public spending) I think Boris should be measured against this and Boris is clearly on much worse ground. What is even worse is the repeated utilisation of creating racial tension in his newspaper columns since becoming an MP. I remember the "piccaninnies" and "watermelon smile" comments. I think Boris should be removed from the Tory party as he clearly seems to be following the Enoch Powell strategy of moving further to the margins in order to gain and monopolise a certain strand of thought on the extremes of public opinion.williamglenn said:
I don't think that at this stage, Boris' behaviour would merit expulsion from the Conservative party. After all, Kenneth Clarke has said some uncomplimentary things about burkas.
However, I think that kicking out a high profile MP whose opinions on this subject are widely shared by the public, would do the party far more harm than good.
I could easily see it happen as social pressures and lobbying to be seen to punish such views, to demonstrate how strongly you don’t tolerate them and that it’s not what you’re about, are so strong that it’s hard to resist without being tarred by the same brush.0 -
The Government campaigned for a common market, and voters on both sides who voted at the time consistently refer to it in those terms.Ishmael_Z said:
I don't know how old you are, but I was there and the overall picture that we thought we were voting on a common market is simply nor obscured by the isolated counter examples you provide. Check out the actual referendum question wording btw.williamglenn said:
There certainly wasn't any secret about the political nature of the project.CD13 said:Mr Glenn,
"Why do you think Powell's support for Brexit in 1975 didn't help?"
Because few believed the Common Market would evolve into the EU as it now is. As ludicrous a concept as Turkey joining the EU is now.
To the extent the average voter picked up on the Mail’s header, which actually says political union isn’t a live issue in that article, they’d either have put it down to empty post WWII healing rhetoric or thought it’d simply never happen as the EEC weren’t serious.0 -
Breaking News
US confirms Russia used the nerve agent in Salisbury and new sanctions will be imposed on Russia. The US own investigation backs up UK findings0 -
Which is why he wrote it, using the language he did.kjohnw said:
according to sky news poll 60% of britons do not see BJs remarks as racist. he's only saying what most of us are thinking anywayTheScreamingEagles said:
As someone who receives a lot of abuse along those lines, this is his view.CD13 said:Yawn,
Its not racist, it's rude. Of course. How can it be racist if Islam is not a race?
Or if Islam is a race then so is Christianity. And anyone who insults Christianity is therefore a racist.
I suppose that is too logical.
https://twitter.com/Baddiel/status/10269244153538600960 -
It's not "one might even argue" it's absolutely the case.brendan16 said:
Most Muslim women in the UK or across the world don't wear burqas or niqabs. One might even argue the niqab and burqa is in fact represents no 3 - a political manifestation of Islam. It's wearing it's much more common now across the world than it was in the 1960s and 1970s and the Quran has not been rewritten!Mexicanpete said:
If Johnson's article ticks any of those boxes its the first one.Sean_F said:
Islamophobia has three strands.CD13 said:Mr Eagles,
Islamophobia is now the term used, isn't it? A dislike of Islam is also a peculiar concoction. Like 'Christianophobia' - a morbid dislike of the religion - that would be an opinion which many atheists might take (including some of my friends).
It's only when it comes down to disliking or hating individuals because they are Christian or Muslim that it becomes a real problem. Perhaps a new term is needed?
1. Prejudice against Muslims,
2. Hostility to Islam
3. Hostility to political manifestations of Islam.
1. Should be condemned, 2 and 3 are fair game.
This is a great article by Karen Armstrong on the subject
Until the late 19th century, veiling was neither a central nor a universal practice in the Islamic world. The Qur'an does not command all women to cover their heads; the full hijab was traditionally worn only by aristocratic women, as a mark of status. In Egypt, under Muhammad Ali's leadership (1805-48), the lot of women improved dramatically, and many were abandoning the veil and moving more freely in society.
But after the British occupied Egypt in 1882, the consul general, Lord Cromer, ignored this development. He argued that veiling was the "fatal obstacle" that prevented Egyptians from participating fully in western civilisation. Until it was abolished, Egypt would need the benevolent supervision of the colonialists.
...
When Egyptian pundits sycophantically supported Cromer, veiling became a hot issue. In 1899 Qassim Amin published Tahrir al-Mara - The Liberation of Women - which obsequiously praised the nobility of European culture, arguing that the veil symbolised everything that was wrong with Islam and Egypt. It was no feminist tract: Egyptian women, according to Amin, were dirty, ignorant and hopelessly inadequate parents. The book created a furore, and the ensuing debate made the veil a symbol of resistance to colonialism.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/oct/26/comment.politics1
0 -
I'm really depressed about all of politics. The Labour Party is a write off with Corbyn as leader - the whole anti-semitism debate as racist as Boris Johnson writing about muslim women and the ongoing Brexit fiasco. Vince Cable a non-starter. I really don't have anywhere to go. I've never voted Conservative in my life and I like my MP Stella Creasy, but the thought of voting Labour next time makes my skin crawl. Help!0
-
I quit the AA for good on the third iteration of that palaver for precisely that reason, and told them so.IanB2 said:
It does generally work with BT, though. Every year I go through the same charade, ringing them up to express concern about how much they are quoting for a new contract, and every year they offer a special reduction if I will renew for another term. It's worse than renewing your car insurance.TOPPING said:
Funnily enough it seemed to stop working (the haggling) with Three some time ago. Ring up to say you're cancelling? Fine, see ya they saidNickPalmer said:I've taken a week off for miscellanous idleness, so I decided I'd follow up a BT email saying they were going to increase my broadband fee (by a modest amount now and by 100% in a year), and if I wanted to prevent this I should give them a call to discuss it or cancel.
! rang the number for cancelling. It rang and rang. I got with other things, but after 25 minutes I gave up.
I then rang the general BT helpline. This time I got someone after 15 minutes. I said I could see there was an offer which was £5 cheaper, and other loss-leading providers that were cheaper stil, so I'd decided to switch, what steps should I take?
He said how about we make it £2 cheaper?
I said no, that was still £3 more * 24 months. Let's just call it a day.
He said in that case, how about £4 cheaper? Just £1/month more than the others, saves the hassle.
I said OK. But I wanted to switch my mobile for similar reasons.
He said ah, in that case we can reduce your landline by a further £2 so long as you don't switch the mobile.
Thoughts:
1. Shouldn't Ofcom look into a cancellation line that doesn't actually answer?
2. Is it in the public interest that list prices are fictitious and the actual price is determined by how much you haggle, like a bazaar?
That said recently they have taken to offering good deals or improvements without prompting. So maybe they're worrying about switching again.
They told me understood but wouldn’t be changing their policy.0 -
Many will share your frustrations but as an election is unlikely best see how things pan out between now and the end of March 19.mwjfrome17 said:I'm really depressed about all of politics. The Labour Party is a write off with Corbyn as leader - the whole anti-semitism debate as racist as Boris Johnson writing about muslim women and the ongoing Brexit fiasco. Vince Cable a non-starter. I really don't have anywhere to go. I've never voted Conservative in my life and I like my MP Stella Creasy, but the thought of voting Labour next time makes my skin crawl. Help!
Hopefully Brexit will be clearer by then and again hopefully politics may get down to the domestic issues. However, I cannot see any circumstance that Corbyn is the answer0 -
Mr Pete,
"If Johnson's article ticks any of those boxes its the first one."
According to the BBC, the article's gist was that Johnson was arguing that we SHOULDN'T band the burkha as France and Denmark have done. Do you disagree?
0 -
I have a very close relative in CTU who told me we don’t know the half of it.Big_G_NorthWales said:Breaking News
US confirms Russia used the nerve agent in Salisbury and new sanctions will be imposed on Russia. The US own investigation backs up UK findings
MI5 and the police have heaps of evidence that’s not in the public domain that implicates Russia completely and brazenly from start to finish.0 -
At least it’d mean we’d be talking about something other than Brexit for a change.Sean_F said:
I think it would kick off a revolt within the Party.Casino_Royale said:
The public would see it as an elitist conspiracy to shut down and silence debate.Sean_F said:
As I am no longer a Conservative party member, it's probably not for me to say who they should or should not expel.Mexicanpete said:
For a mainstream sociallly liberal Tory to cast his net towards the extreme right (not just of his party but to those with baser political instincts) for the sole purpose of realising his own ambitions, hell yes, that merits expulsion! Once out he could join Batten's UKIP where his rhetoric belongs.Sean_F said:
Howard Flight was treated unfairly. I wouldn't use that as a yardstick.The_Taxman said:
I remember when Howard Flight had the whip withdrawn by Michael Howard in the 2005 General Election campaign. My recollection is that Flight advocated cited reducing government spending (Given Brown had spending cuts in the guise of the Gershwin review it was hardly worth the sacking but the Tories had become too sensitive to criticism about their approach to public spending) I think Boris should be measured against this and Boris is clearly on much worse ground. What is even worse is the repeated utilisation of creating racial tension in his newspaper columns since becoming an MP. I remember the "piccaninnies" and "watermelon smile" comments. I think Boris should be removed from the Tory party as he clearly seems to be following the Enoch Powell strategy of moving further to the margins in order to gain and monopolise a certain strand of thought on the extremes of public opinion.williamglenn said:
I don't think that at this stage, Boris' behaviour would merit expulsion from the Conservative party. After all, Kenneth Clarke has said some uncomplimentary things about burkas.
However, I think that kicking out a high profile MP whose opinions on this subject are widely shared by the public, would do the party far more harm than good.
I could easily see it happen as social pressures and lobbying to be seen to punish such views, to demonstrate how strongly you don’t tolerate them and that it’s not what you’re about, are so strong that it’s hard to resist without being tarred by the same brush.0 -
Irrelevant. Just because a majority of voters agree with it doesn't make it right.kjohnw said:
according to sky news poll 60% of britons do not see BJs remarks as racist. he's only saying what most of us are thinking anywayTheScreamingEagles said:
As someone who receives a lot of abuse along those lines, this is his view.CD13 said:Yawn,
Its not racist, it's rude. Of course. How can it be racist if Islam is not a race?
Or if Islam is a race then so is Christianity. And anyone who insults Christianity is therefore a racist.
I suppose that is too logical.
https://twitter.com/Baddiel/status/1026924415353860096
In the 70s/80s a majority of voters opposed inter-racial marriages fortunately society evolved.0 -
That’s fair enough.Sean_F said:
I find outright hostility towards a mainstream religion unpleasant, but I think that people are entitled to express such hostility.Casino_Royale said:
I’d say 3 is absolutely fair game. I personally find outright hostility to religions (e.g. by atheists) rather rude, but that’s almost always directed at Christianity.Sean_F said:
Islamophobia has three strands.CD13 said:Mr Eagles,
Islamophobia is now the term used, isn't it? A dislike of Islam is also a peculiar concoction. Like 'Christianophobia' - a morbid dislike of the religion - that would be an opinion which many atheists might take (including some of my friends).
It's only when it comes down to disliking or hating individuals because they are Christian or Muslim that it becomes a real problem. Perhaps a new term is needed?
1. Prejudice against Muslims,
2. Hostility to Islam
3. Hostility to political manifestations of Islam.
1. Should be condemned, 2 and 3 are fair game.
I am very close to (2) on Scientology and Jehovah’s Witness, both of which I find absolutely barking.0 -
If Boris got kicked out and fought a by-election, he'd likely win it.Casino_Royale said:
At least it’d mean we’d be talking about something other than Brexit for a change.Sean_F said:
I think it would kick off a revolt within the Party.Casino_Royale said:
The public would see it as an elitist conspiracy to shut down and silence debate.Sean_F said:
As I am no longer a Conservative party member, it's probably not for me to say who they should or should not expel.Mexicanpete said:
For a mainstream sociallly liberal Tory to cast his net towards the extreme right (not just of his party but to those with baser political instincts) for the sole purpose of realising his own ambitions, hell yes, that merits expulsion! Once out he could join Batten's UKIP where his rhetoric belongs.Sean_F said:
Howard Flight was treated unfairly. I wouldn't use that as a yardstick.The_Taxman said:
I remember when Howard Flight had the whip withdrawn by Michael Howard in the 2005 General Election campaign. My recollection is that Flight advocated cited reducing government spending (Given Brown had spending cuts in the guise of the Gershwin review it was hardly worth the sacking but the Tories had become too sensitive to criticism about their approach to public spending) I think Boris should be measured against this and Boris is clearly on much worse ground. What is even worse is the repeated utilisation of creating racial tension in his newspaper columns since becoming an MP. I remember the "piccaninnies" and "watermelon smile" comments. I think Boris should be removed from the Tory party as he clearly seems to be following the Enoch Powell strategy of moving further to the margins in order to gain and monopolise a certain strand of thought on the extremes of public opinion.williamglenn said:
I don't think that at this stage, Boris' behaviour would merit expulsion from the Conservative party. After all, Kenneth Clarke has said some uncomplimentary things about burkas.
However, I think that kicking out a high profile MP whose opinions on this subject are widely shared by the public, would do the party far more harm than good.
I could easily see it happen as social pressures and lobbying to be seen to punish such views, to demonstrate how strongly you don’t tolerate them and that it’s not what you’re about, are so strong that it’s hard to resist without being tarred by the same brush.0 -
Boris cannot be trusted in any senior position. The language he used actually complicated the debate as it would appear from media reporting he was attacking the burka with the intention of banning it, which of course he was notTheScreamingEagles said:
Irrelevant. Just because a majority of voters agree with it doesn't make it right.kjohnw said:
according to sky news poll 60% of britons do not see BJs remarks as racist. he's only saying what most of us are thinking anywayTheScreamingEagles said:
As someone who receives a lot of abuse along those lines, this is his view.CD13 said:Yawn,
Its not racist, it's rude. Of course. How can it be racist if Islam is not a race?
Or if Islam is a race then so is Christianity. And anyone who insults Christianity is therefore a racist.
I suppose that is too logical.
https://twitter.com/Baddiel/status/1026924415353860096
In the 70s/80s a majority of voters opposed inter-racial marriages fortunately society evolved.
It is a conversation the Country should have but Boris stupidity has just polarised opinion.
He is a total liability. Needs to leave the HOC and make a fortune editing a newspaper like Osborne has0 -
Chloe O'Brien?Casino_Royale said:
I have a very close relative in CTU who told me we don’t know the half of it.Big_G_NorthWales said:Breaking News
US confirms Russia used the nerve agent in Salisbury and new sanctions will be imposed on Russia. The US own investigation backs up UK findings
MI5 and the police have heaps of evidence that’s not in the public domain that implicates Russia completely and brazenly from start to finish.
0 -
You’re expressing a lot of opinions there, though.ydoethur said:
Scientology isn't a religion, it's closer to a political cult. There aren't many Jehovah's Witnesses although they are quite noisy and visible, so they are hardly an issue.Casino_Royale said:
I’d say 3 is absolutely fair game. I personally find outright hostility to religions (e.g. by atheists) rather rude, but that’s almost always directed at Christianity.Sean_F said:
Islamophobia has three strands.CD13 said:Mr Eagles,
Islamophobia is now the term used, isn't it? A dislike of Islam is also a peculiar concoction. Like 'Christianophobia' - a morbid dislike of the religion - that would be an opinion which many atheists might take (including some of my friends).
It's only when it comes down to disliking or hating individuals because they are Christian or Muslim that it becomes a real problem. Perhaps a new term is needed?
1. Prejudice against Muslims,
2. Hostility to Islam
3. Hostility to political manifestations of Islam.
1. Should be condemned, 2 and 3 are fair game.
I am very close to (2) on Scientology and Jehovah’s Witness, both of which I find absolutely barking.
There are 1.8 billion Muslims but they are of course a minority within Europe.
I have a Jehovah’s Witness meeting hall at the end of my street. Scientology is certainly considered by its adherents to be a religion.
I’m not sure you can define the difference between cult and religion by anything except numbers of followers, and the realpolitik that goes with that.0 -
I think it unlikely that society will become more supportive of the burka. Even large numbers of Labour voters and 18-34 year olds want it banned.TheScreamingEagles said:
Irrelevant. Just because a majority of voters agree with it doesn't make it right.kjohnw said:
according to sky news poll 60% of britons do not see BJs remarks as racist. he's only saying what most of us are thinking anywayTheScreamingEagles said:
As someone who receives a lot of abuse along those lines, this is his view.CD13 said:Yawn,
Its not racist, it's rude. Of course. How can it be racist if Islam is not a race?
Or if Islam is a race then so is Christianity. And anyone who insults Christianity is therefore a racist.
I suppose that is too logical.
https://twitter.com/Baddiel/status/1026924415353860096
In the 70s/80s a majority of voters opposed inter-racial marriages fortunately society evolved.0 -
The party will not kick him out but giving him a chance of leadership is much more unlikely gaff by gaffSean_F said:
If Boris got kicked out and fought a by-election, he'd likely win it.Casino_Royale said:
At least it’d mean we’d be talking about something other than Brexit for a change.Sean_F said:
I think it would kick off a revolt within the Party.Casino_Royale said:
The public would see it as an elitist conspiracy to shut down and silence debate.Sean_F said:
As I am no longer a Conservative party member, it's probably not for me to say who they should or should not expel.Mexicanpete said:
For a mainstream sociallly liberal Tory to cast his net towards the extreme right (not just of his party but to those with baser political instincts) for the sole purpose of realising his own ambitions, hell yes, that merits expulsion! Once out he could join Batten's UKIP where his rhetoric belongs.Sean_F said:
Howard Flight was treated unfairly. I wouldn't use that as a yardstick.The_Taxman said:
I remember when Howard Flight had the whip withdrawn by Michael Howard in the 2005 General Election campaign. My recollection is that Flight advocated cited reducing government spending (Given Brown had spending cuts in the guise of the Gershwin review it was hardly worth the sacking but the Tories had become too sensitive to criticism about their approach to public spending) I think Boris should be measured against this and Boris is clearly on much worse ground. What is even worse is the repeated utilisation of creating racial tension in his newspaper columns since becoming an MP. I remember the "piccaninnies" and "watermelon smile" comments. I think Boris should be removed from the Tory party as he clearly seems to be following the Enoch Powell strategy of moving further to the margins in order to gain and monopolise a certain strand of thought on the extremes of public opinion.williamglenn said:
I don't think that at this stage, Boris' behaviour would merit expulsion from the Conservative party. After all, Kenneth Clarke has said some uncomplimentary things about burkas.
However, I think that kicking out a high profile MP whose opinions on this subject are widely shared by the public, would do the party far more harm than good.
I could easily see it happen as social pressures and lobbying to be seen to punish such views, to demonstrate how strongly you don’t tolerate them and that it’s not what you’re about, are so strong that it’s hard to resist without being tarred by the same brush.0 -
People got diverted the other day in discussing what was the oldest nation in Europe, so historical arguments may be the best method.Casino_Royale said:
At least it’d mean we’d be talking about something other than Brexit for a change.Sean_F said:
I think it would kick off a revolt within the Party.Casino_Royale said:
The public would see it as an elitist conspiracy to shut down and silence debate.Sean_F said:
As I am no longer a Conservative party member, it's probably not for me to say who they should or should not expel.Mexicanpete said:
For a mainstream sociallly liberal Tory to cast his net towards the extreme right (not just of his party but to those with baser political instincts) for the sole purpose of realising his own ambitions, hell yes, that merits expulsion! Once out he could join Batten's UKIP where his rhetoric belongs.Sean_F said:
Howard Flight was treated unfairly. I wouldn't use that as a yardstick.The_Taxman said:
I remember when Howard Flight had the whip withdrawn by Michael Howard in the 2005 General Election campaign. My recollection is that Flight advocated cited reducing government spending (Given Brown had spending cuts in the guise of the Gershwin review it was hardly worth the sacking but the Tories had become too sensitive to criticism about their approach to public spending) I think Boris should be measured against this and Boris is clearly on much worse ground. What is even worse is the repeated utilisation of creating racial tension in his newspaper columns since becoming an MP. I remember the "piccaninnies" and "watermelon smile" comments. I think Boris should be removed from the Tory party as he clearly seems to be following the Enoch Powell strategy of moving further to the margins in order to gain and monopolise a certain strand of thought on the extremes of public opinion.williamglenn said:
I don't think that at this stage, Boris' behaviour would merit expulsion from the Conservative party. After all, Kenneth Clarke has said some uncomplimentary things about burkas.
However, I think that kicking out a high profile MP whose opinions on this subject are widely shared by the public, would do the party far more harm than good.
I could easily see it happen as social pressures and lobbying to be seen to punish such views, to demonstrate how strongly you don’t tolerate them and that it’s not what you’re about, are so strong that it’s hard to resist without being tarred by the same brush.
Who was better Subutai or Yi Sun-Sin?
0 -
Sadly not.Freggles said:
Chloe O'Brien?Casino_Royale said:
I have a very close relative in CTU who told me we don’t know the half of it.Big_G_NorthWales said:Breaking News
US confirms Russia used the nerve agent in Salisbury and new sanctions will be imposed on Russia. The US own investigation backs up UK findings
MI5 and the police have heaps of evidence that’s not in the public domain that implicates Russia completely and brazenly from start to finish.0 -
He won't quit the scene until his chance to become PM has gone. As yet, it has not. But whatever his merits and charisma, do Tory MPs want to have to constantly justify what are sure to be either offensive or provocative remarks, flip flopping and the like, that a Boris premiership would be like.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Boris cannot be trusted in any senior position. The language he used actually complicated the debate as it would appear from media reporting he was attacking the burka with the intention of banning it, which of course he was notTheScreamingEagles said:
Irrelevant. Just because a majority of voters agree with it doesn't make it right.kjohnw said:
according to sky news poll 60% of britons do not see BJs remarks as racist. he's only saying what most of us are thinking anywayTheScreamingEagles said:
As someone who receives a lot of abuse along those lines, this is his view.CD13 said:Yawn,
Its not racist, it's rude. Of course. How can it be racist if Islam is not a race?
Or if Islam is a race then so is Christianity. And anyone who insults Christianity is therefore a racist.
I suppose that is too logical.
https://twitter.com/Baddiel/status/1026924415353860096
In the 70s/80s a majority of voters opposed inter-racial marriages fortunately society evolved.
It is a conversation the Country should have but Boris stupidity has just polarised opinion.
He is a total liability. Needs to leave the HOC and make a fortune editing a newspaper like Osborne has0 -
I think such schismatic divides on culture is precisely where our society is heading.Sean_F said:
I think it unlikely that society will become more supportive of the burka. Even large numbers of Labour voters and 18-34 year olds want it banned.TheScreamingEagles said:
Irrelevant. Just because a majority of voters agree with it doesn't make it right.kjohnw said:
according to sky news poll 60% of britons do not see BJs remarks as racist. he's only saying what most of us are thinking anywayTheScreamingEagles said:
As someone who receives a lot of abuse along those lines, this is his view.CD13 said:Yawn,
Its not racist, it's rude. Of course. How can it be racist if Islam is not a race?
Or if Islam is a race then so is Christianity. And anyone who insults Christianity is therefore a racist.
I suppose that is too logical.
https://twitter.com/Baddiel/status/1026924415353860096
In the 70s/80s a majority of voters opposed inter-racial marriages fortunately society evolved.0 -
I genuinely hope notkle4 said:
He won't quit the scene until his chance to become PM has gone. As yet, it has not. But whatever his merits and charisma, do Tory MPs want to have to constantly justify what are sure to be either offensive or provocative remarks, flip flopping and the like, that a Boris premiership would be like.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Boris cannot be trusted in any senior position. The language he used actually complicated the debate as it would appear from media reporting he was attacking the burka with the intention of banning it, which of course he was notTheScreamingEagles said:
Irrelevant. Just because a majority of voters agree with it doesn't make it right.kjohnw said:
according to sky news poll 60% of britons do not see BJs remarks as racist. he's only saying what most of us are thinking anywayTheScreamingEagles said:
As someone who receives a lot of abuse along those lines, this is his view.CD13 said:Yawn,
Its not racist, it's rude. Of course. How can it be racist if Islam is not a race?
Or if Islam is a race then so is Christianity. And anyone who insults Christianity is therefore a racist.
I suppose that is too logical.
https://twitter.com/Baddiel/status/1026924415353860096
In the 70s/80s a majority of voters opposed inter-racial marriages fortunately society evolved.
It is a conversation the Country should have but Boris stupidity has just polarised opinion.
He is a total liability. Needs to leave the HOC and make a fortune editing a newspaper like Osborne has0 -
It wasn’t a gaff. He’s worked out (correctly) he no longer has a path to the leadership through demonstrating credibility and competence so he’s now trying this instead.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The party will not kick him out but giving him a chance of leadership is much more unlikely gaff by gaffSean_F said:
If Boris got kicked out and fought a by-election, he'd likely win it.Casino_Royale said:
At least it’d mean we’d be talking about something other than Brexit for a change.Sean_F said:
I think it would kick off a revolt within the Party.Casino_Royale said:
The public would see it as an elitist conspiracy to shut down and silence debate.Sean_F said:
As I am no longer a Conservative party member, it's probably not for me to say who they should or should not expel.Mexicanpete said:
For a mainstream sociallly liberal Tory to cast his net towards the extreme right (not just of his party but to those with baser political instincts) for the sole purpose of realising his own ambitions, hell yes, that merits expulsion! Once out he could join Batten's UKIP where his rhetoric belongs.Sean_F said:
Howard Flight was treated unfairly. I wouldn't use that as a yardstick.The_Taxman said:
I don't think that at this stage, Boris' behaviour would merit expulsion from the Conservative party. After all, Kenneth Clarke has said some uncomplimentary things about burkas.
However, I think that kicking out a high profile MP whose opinions on this subject are widely shared by the public, would do the party far more harm than good.
I could easily see it happen as social pressures and lobbying to be seen to punish such views, to demonstrate how strongly you don’t tolerate them and that it’s not what you’re about, are so strong that it’s hard to resist without being tarred by the same brush.0 -
What on earth is she thinking. Just crassTheScreamingEagles said:0 -
You are missing the point! Johnson used a liberal theme of insisting the burkha should not be banned but threw in unnecessary incendiary dog whistle comments. He was flying a kite, and it flew!CD13 said:Mr Pete,
"If Johnson's article ticks any of those boxes its the first one."
According to the BBC, the article's gist was that Johnson was arguing that we SHOULDN'T band the burkha as France and Denmark have done. Do you disagree?
I have no view one way or the other on muslim women wearing the niqab. I am a firm believer of 'when in Rome' etc. Customs of a country should on the whole be followed, but as to whether the niqab is a step too far? I really couldn't care less.0 -
Well it would be a bit embarrassing if we don't get back in before Turkey joins.CD13 said:Mr Glenn,
I've no doubt that in 40 years time, if we stay in the EU, they will be saying "If you had read the EU treat properly, you would have seen that others countries, including Turkey were always likely to join. It was made quite clear."0 -
She’s got him down to a T, to be honest.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What on earth is she thinking. Just crassTheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Well maybe, but Boris is also crass, he is hardly in a position to get defensive, and that makes it hard for her to be condemned for any crassness by others seeking to defend him.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What on earth is she thinking. Just crassTheScreamingEagles said:0 -
It's just Rupa being Rupa.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What on earth is she thinking. Just crassTheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Big_G_NorthWales said:
What on earth is she thinking. Just crassTheScreamingEagles said:
Allegedly he may struggle to launch a credible defamation prosecution against her.0 -
So politics is broken. Can anyone paint a picture, where in five/ten years we have genuinely talented politicians debating sensible policies? Because right now I can’t see it. And that is depressing and scary.0
-
Well I for one wish they'd put some more of it in the public domain. As it is, they are allowing Russia to continue with their obfuscation.Casino_Royale said:
I have a very close relative in CTU who told me we don’t know the half of it.Big_G_NorthWales said:Breaking News
US confirms Russia used the nerve agent in Salisbury and new sanctions will be imposed on Russia. The US own investigation backs up UK findings
MI5 and the police have heaps of evidence that’s not in the public domain that implicates Russia completely and brazenly from start to finish.0 -
Would you join a club where the other members can and will change the rules and even the nature of the club? Why not you may say. Many clubs can evolve over time and it should be up to the members.
True, but how about if it might become impossible to leave in the future? No matter what? Would you be so keen to join then?
That's why the Remainer argument that it's too late, it's too difficult to leave isn't working well.
0 -
I think that is rather unfair - Russian obfuscation would continue regardless, as will those believing alternate hypotheses, even the amazingly ridiculous ones. I can see few benefits to putting considerably more out there than we have to date, particularly as they have periodically released information, so it is just the pace of it that is objected to.Benpointer said:
Well I for one wish they'd put some more of it in the public domain. As it is, they are allowing Russia to continue with their obfuscation.Casino_Royale said:
I have a very close relative in CTU who told me we don’t know the half of it.Big_G_NorthWales said:Breaking News
US confirms Russia used the nerve agent in Salisbury and new sanctions will be imposed on Russia. The US own investigation backs up UK findings
MI5 and the police have heaps of evidence that’s not in the public domain that implicates Russia completely and brazenly from start to finish.0 -
Mr kle4
"and that makes it hard for her to be condemned for any crassness by others seeking to defend him."
Not at all. It just makes two separate instances of crassness.0 -
If his being crass is ok, in his defender's eyes, how can they complain about her being crass? It would be hypocritical. Other people could complain, but not him or his defenders, not without looking extremely silly.CD13 said:Mr kle4
"and that makes it hard for her to be condemned for any crassness by others seeking to defend him."
Not at all. It just makes two separate instances of crassness.0 -
For me it's about openness.kle4 said:
I think that is rather unfair - Russian obfuscation would continue regardless, as will those believing alternate hypotheses, even the amazingly ridiculous ones. I can see few benefits to putting considerably more out there than we have to date, particularly as they have periodically released information, so it is just the pace of it that is objected to.Benpointer said:
Well I for one wish they'd put some more of it in the public domain. As it is, they are allowing Russia to continue with their obfuscation.Casino_Royale said:
I have a very close relative in CTU who told me we don’t know the half of it.Big_G_NorthWales said:Breaking News
US confirms Russia used the nerve agent in Salisbury and new sanctions will be imposed on Russia. The US own investigation backs up UK findings
MI5 and the police have heaps of evidence that’s not in the public domain that implicates Russia completely and brazenly from start to finish.
@Casino_Royale asserted that "MI5 and the police have heaps of evidence that’s not in the public domain that implicates Russia completely and brazenly from start to finish." Now, Casino may be mistaken in that assertion but assuming he is not, MI5 should issue that information and embarrass Russia as fully as possible.0 -
Mr kle4,
I've earlier condemned him for being crass. I now condemn her too. I am consistent, the hypocrisy is hers.
0 -
The fact that you're having to argue against it shows that the truth that leaving the EU will be very painful is hitting home.CD13 said:Would you join a club where the other members can and will change the rules and even the nature of the club? Why not you may say. Many clubs can evolve over time and it should be up to the members.
True, but how about if it might become impossible to leave in the future? No matter what? Would you be so keen to join then?
That's why the Remainer argument that it's too late, it's too difficult to leave isn't working well.
Bizarrely, I've only ever seen Leavers suggest it might be impossible to leave; Remains just point out that it will be very self-damaging.0 -
If that is your reasoning, as expressed, you seem to be suggesting every detail should be put in the public domain as a matter of course, or at least presuming it should be very simple to do so with very serious matters. I believe in openness, but I think a call for such expansive openness, in such a complicated and sensitive matter, is a bit unreasonable.Benpointer said:
For me it's about openness.kle4 said:
I think that is rather unfair - Russian obfuscation would continue regardless, as will those believing alternate hypotheses, even the amazingly ridiculous ones. I can see few benefits to putting considerably more out there than we have to date, particularly as they have periodically released information, so it is just the pace of it that is objected to.Benpointer said:
Well I for one wish they'd put some more of it in the public domain. As it is, they are allowing Russia to continue with their obfuscation.Casino_Royale said:
I have a very close relative in CTU who told me we don’t know the half of it.Big_G_NorthWales said:Breaking News
US confirms Russia used the nerve agent in Salisbury and new sanctions will be imposed on Russia. The US own investigation backs up UK findings
MI5 and the police have heaps of evidence that’s not in the public domain that implicates Russia completely and brazenly from start to finish.
@Casino_Royale asserted that "MI5 and the police have heaps of evidence that’s not in the public domain that implicates Russia completely and brazenly from start to finish." Now, Casino may be mistaken in that assertion but assuming he is not, MI5 should issue that information and embarrass Russia as fully as possible.
I didn't say you were being hypocritical. My point was all about how BORIS and people who would defend him and attack her could not do so.CD13 said:Mr kle4,
I've earlier condemned him for being crass. I now condemn her too. I am consistent, the hypocrisy is hers.0 -
What was Ken Clarke trying when he described people wearing the burqa as looking like they were wearing a bag?Casino_Royale said:It wasn’t a gaff. He’s worked out (correctly) he no longer has a path to the leadership through demonstrating credibility and competence so he’s now trying this instead.
What was Anna Soubry trying when she backed Ken Clarke up over that?
https://order-order.com/2018/08/08/soubry-burka-is-a-peculiar-concept/
Seems to me that Boris is being attacked because he's Boris not because of what he said.0 -
Those comments were during a Question Time debate where the subject was topical because of a ban somewhere else, not out of the blue from a failed Foreign Secretary trying to draw attention to himself.Philip_Thompson said:
What was Ken Clarke trying when he described people wearing the burqa as looking like they were wearing a bag?Casino_Royale said:It wasn’t a gaff. He’s worked out (correctly) he no longer has a path to the leadership through demonstrating credibility and competence so he’s now trying this instead.
What was Anna Soubry trying when she backed Ken Clarke up over that?
https://order-order.com/2018/08/08/soubry-burka-is-a-peculiar-concept/
Seems to me that Boris is being attacked because he's Boris not because of what he said.0 -
I cannot paint that picture, but we can always hope - as things devolve rapidly, they can improve rapidly too, even from unexpected people who, freed from the shackles of current politics, may surprise us.Jonathan said:So politics is broken. Can anyone paint a picture, where in five/ten years we have genuinely talented politicians debating sensible policies? Because right now I can’t see it. And that is depressing and scary.
But I am not optimistic. Boris vs Corbyn is looking like the next pitched battle - bitter (even for politics), hysterical, snowflake supporters abounding and self righteousness running rampant.0 -
The job isn't just to embarrass Russia though. The job is to keep us safe and protecting sources etc is part of that. Considering Russia is currently killing people on our streets ... not for the first time mind ... its surely more important to be able to keep tabs on them than it is to embarrass them.Benpointer said:
For me it's about openness.kle4 said:
I think that is rather unfair - Russian obfuscation would continue regardless, as will those believing alternate hypotheses, even the amazingly ridiculous ones. I can see few benefits to putting considerably more out there than we have to date, particularly as they have periodically released information, so it is just the pace of it that is objected to.Benpointer said:
Well I for one wish they'd put some more of it in the public domain. As it is, they are allowing Russia to continue with their obfuscation.Casino_Royale said:
I have a very close relative in CTU who told me we don’t know the half of it.Big_G_NorthWales said:Breaking News
US confirms Russia used the nerve agent in Salisbury and new sanctions will be imposed on Russia. The US own investigation backs up UK findings
MI5 and the police have heaps of evidence that’s not in the public domain that implicates Russia completely and brazenly from start to finish.
@Casino_Royale asserted that "MI5 and the police have heaps of evidence that’s not in the public domain that implicates Russia completely and brazenly from start to finish." Now, Casino may be mistaken in that assertion but assuming he is not, MI5 should issue that information and embarrass Russia as fully as possible.0 -
The burka is fair game, as far as I'm concerned. I don't know where I stand on banning it - though foreign countries we purport to feel quite freindly wit have done so. But I am absolutely in favour of ridiculing it. We're not having a go at Muslims here, we're having a go at medeival throwbacks who don't believe an adult woman should be seen. We can defend wearing it in the name of liberty and free choice, but ridiculing it seems a prett reasonable response, just as we might ridicule Tommy Robinson's mob of halfwits.0
-
What's your argument for hiding any of it from the public?kle4 said:
If that is your reasoning, as expressed, you seem to be suggesting every detail should be put in the public domain as a matter of course, or at least presuming it should be very simple to do so with very serious matters. I believe in openness, but I think a call for such expansive openness, in such a complicated and sensitive matter, is a bit unreasonable.Benpointer said:
For me it's about openness.kle4 said:
I think that is rather unfair - Russian obfuscation would continue regardless, as will those believing alternate hypotheses, even the amazingly ridiculous ones. I can see few benefits to putting considerably more out there than we have to date, particularly as they have periodically released information, so it is just the pace of it that is objected to.Benpointer said:
Well I for one wish they'd put some more of it in the public domain. As it is, they are allowing Russia to continue with their obfuscation.Casino_Royale said:
I have a very close relative in CTU who told me we don’t know the half of it.Big_G_NorthWales said:Breaking News
US confirms Russia used the nerve agent in Salisbury and new sanctions will be imposed on Russia. The US own investigation backs up UK findings
MI5 and the police have heaps of evidence that’s not in the public domain that implicates Russia completely and brazenly from start to finish.
@Casino_Royale asserted that "MI5 and the police have heaps of evidence that’s not in the public domain that implicates Russia completely and brazenly from start to finish." Now, Casino may be mistaken in that assertion but assuming he is not, MI5 should issue that information and embarrass Russia as fully as possible.
0 -
Mr Pointer,
Let's look at this logically.
Let's assume that the EU is difficult to leave - whether because of their own rules, or because it would cause damage to us. Either way, it still suggests it could have been a mistake to join.
Not exactly a recommendation to stay.
0 -
-
Just for the record I do not nor will I defend Boris. He is just unsuited to any senior roll and will never get my vote (as a member)kle4 said:
Well maybe, but Boris is also crass, he is hardly in a position to get defensive, and that makes it hard for her to be condemned for any crassness by others seeking to defend him.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What on earth is she thinking. Just crassTheScreamingEagles said:
But two wrongs do not make a right and she lowered herelf to his level in that clip0 -
Boris's comments are topical because of the ban somewhere else that came into effect this week to! With your failed foreign secretary remarks you're just reinforcing it's the axe you have to grind with Boris that's the issue not really what he said. Had it been Ken Clarke or Soubry there would be no issue again.williamglenn said:
Those comments were during a Question Time debate where the subject was topical because of a ban somewhere else, not out of the blue from a failed Foreign Secretary trying to draw attention to himself.Philip_Thompson said:
What was Ken Clarke trying when he described people wearing the burqa as looking like they were wearing a bag?Casino_Royale said:It wasn’t a gaff. He’s worked out (correctly) he no longer has a path to the leadership through demonstrating credibility and competence so he’s now trying this instead.
What was Anna Soubry trying when she backed Ken Clarke up over that?
https://order-order.com/2018/08/08/soubry-burka-is-a-peculiar-concept/
Seems to me that Boris is being attacked because he's Boris not because of what he said.0 -
So Boris being Boris is his excuse.Recidivist said:
It's just Rupa being Rupa.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What on earth is she thinking. Just crassTheScreamingEagles said:
Our poor country will this level of politicians0 -
Do you not understand? Johnson wantonly wrote his article to achieve an end. Johnson is not the victim here, infact I suspect he sees himself as the victor (in this little battle at least).Philip_Thompson said:
What was Ken Clarke trying when he described people wearing the burqa as looking like they were wearing a bag?Casino_Royale said:It wasn’t a gaff. He’s worked out (correctly) he no longer has a path to the leadership through demonstrating credibility and competence so he’s now trying this instead.
What was Anna Soubry trying when she backed Ken Clarke up over that?
https://order-order.com/2018/08/08/soubry-burka-is-a-peculiar-concept/
Seems to me that Boris is being attacked because he's Boris not because of what he said.0 -
I'd find it difficult to leave my house and go and live on the street. Does that mean I made a mistake in ever buying a house?CD13 said:Mr Pointer,
Let's look at this logically.
Let's assume that the EU is difficult to leave - whether because of their own rules, or because it would cause damage to us. Either way, it still suggests it could have been a mistake to join.
Not exactly a recommendation to stay.0 -
Mr Glenn,
"Those comments were during a Question Time debate where the subject was topical because of a ban somewhere else, not out of the blue from a failed Foreign Secretary trying to draw attention to himself."
I think you're struggling a little here. He insulted people wearing the burqa because he's a disgusting piece of shit. They did it because they are right-thinking political heroes.
Yup. that sounds even-handed.0 -
Yes the end of debating a topical issue in the context of Denmark's ban that is in the news.Mexicanpete said:
Do you not understand? Johnson wantonly wrote his article to achieve an end. Johnson is not the victim here, infact I suspect he sees himself as the victor (in this little battle at least).Philip_Thompson said:
What was Ken Clarke trying when he described people wearing the burqa as looking like they were wearing a bag?Casino_Royale said:It wasn’t a gaff. He’s worked out (correctly) he no longer has a path to the leadership through demonstrating credibility and competence so he’s now trying this instead.
What was Anna Soubry trying when she backed Ken Clarke up over that?
https://order-order.com/2018/08/08/soubry-burka-is-a-peculiar-concept/
Seems to me that Boris is being attacked because he's Boris not because of what he said.0 -
Very fair comment but in 10 years I will be 85 and my wife 90 so if, God willing, we are still on the planet I hope social care has been sorted !!!!!!Jonathan said:So politics is broken. Can anyone paint a picture, where in five/ten years we have genuinely talented politicians debating sensible policies? Because right now I can’t see it. And that is depressing and scary.
0 -
Now you are just being ridiculous - 'any of it'? You seriously do not believe police investigations involving foreign states attempting to assassinate people on British soil should not need to, in real time, publicly disclose all the details of that investigation? Why do you even consider that to be 'hiding' it from the public? Do you not believe in confidential and exempt information?Benpointer said:
What's your argument for hiding any of it from the public?kle4 said:
If that is your reasoning, as expressed, you seem to be suggesting every detail should be put in the public domain as a matter of course, or at least presuming it should be very simple to do so with very serious matters. I believe in openness, but I think a call for such expansive openness, in such a complicated and sensitive matter, is a bit unreasonable.Benpointer said:
For me it's about openness.kle4 said:
I think that is rather unfair - Russian obfuscation would continue regardless, as will those believing alternate hypotheses, even the amazingly rid of it that is objected to.Benpointer said:
Well I for one wish they'd put some more of it in the public domain. As it is, they are allowing Russia to continue with their obfuscation.Casino_Royale said:
I have a very close relative in CTU who told me we don’t know the half of it.Big_G_NorthWales said:Breaking News
US confirms Russia used the nerve agent in Salisbury and new sanctions will be imposed on Russia. The US own investigation backs up UK findings
MI5 and the police have heaps of evidence that’s not in the public domain that implicates Russia completely and brazenly from start to finish.
@Casino_Royale asserteds fully as possible.
That is so far away from my position I don't even see it worthwhile to continue discussing it. Our investigative authorities do need to be ultimately publicly accountable, and justice should be done and be seen to be done, but 'what is the argument for hiding any of it from the public' is a question which would seem to indicate you don't accept that any detail can reasonably be withheld even for the period of the investigation! And as pointed out we have periodically received further details in this investigation, it is not all being hidden, so your entire premise is preposterous.0 -
Never said it made it okBig_G_NorthWales said:
Just for the record I do not nor will I defend Boris. He is just unsuited to any senior roll and will never get my vote (as a member)kle4 said:
Well maybe, but Boris is also crass, he is hardly in a position to get defensive, and that makes it hard for her to be condemned for any crassness by others seeking to defend him.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What on earth is she thinking. Just crassTheScreamingEagles said:
But two wrongs do not make a right and she lowered herelf to his level in that clip
I hope for your and all our sakes it will, but the signs are not good.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Very fair comment but in 10 years I will be 85 and my wife 90 so if, God willing, we are still on the planet I hope social care has been sorted !!!!!!Jonathan said:So politics is broken. Can anyone paint a picture, where in five/ten years we have genuinely talented politicians debating sensible policies? Because right now I can’t see it. And that is depressing and scary.
0 -
Mr Pointer,
If you buy a house inside Pentonville Jail, you might think it a bad idea on reflection - even if the house was free.0 -
Very well said!Cookie said:The burka is fair game, as far as I'm concerned. I don't know where I stand on banning it - though foreign countries we purport to feel quite freindly wit have done so. But I am absolutely in favour of ridiculing it. We're not having a go at Muslims here, we're having a go at medeival throwbacks who don't believe an adult woman should be seen. We can defend wearing it in the name of liberty and free choice, but ridiculing it seems a prett reasonable response, just as we might ridicule Tommy Robinson's mob of halfwits.
When did it become wrong to ridicule the ridiculous? Someone better wind up Mock the Week, let's get a warrant out for Russell Howard ...0 -
The reluctance maybe because it would embarrass Corbyn to boot. They don't want domestic political distractions.Benpointer said:
For me it's about openness.kle4 said:
I think that is rather unfair - Russian obfuscation would continue regardless, as will those believing alternate hypotheses, even the amazingly ridiculous ones. I can see few benefits to putting considerably more out there than we have to date, particularly as they have periodically released information, so it is just the pace of it that is objected to.Benpointer said:
Well I for one wish they'd put some more of it in the public domain. As it is, they are allowing Russia to continue with their obfuscation.Casino_Royale said:
I have a very close relative in CTU who told me we don’t know the half of it.Big_G_NorthWales said:Breaking News
US confirms Russia used the nerve agent in Salisbury and new sanctions will be imposed on Russia. The US own investigation backs up UK findings
MI5 and the police have heaps of evidence that’s not in the public domain that implicates Russia completely and brazenly from start to finish.
@Casino_Royale asserted that "MI5 and the police have heaps of evidence that’s not in the public domain that implicates Russia completely and brazenly from start to finish." Now, Casino may be mistaken in that assertion but assuming he is not, MI5 should issue that information and embarrass Russia as fully as possible.0 -
Do you seriously believe that was his goal, or did you write this as some sort of mental exercise?Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the end of debating a topical issue in the context of Denmark's ban that is in the news.Mexicanpete said:
Do you not understand? Johnson wantonly wrote his article to achieve an end. Johnson is not the victim here, infact I suspect he sees himself as the victor (in this little battle at least).Philip_Thompson said:
What was Ken Clarke trying when he described people wearing the burqa as looking like they were wearing a bag?Casino_Royale said:It wasn’t a gaff. He’s worked out (correctly) he no longer has a path to the leadership through demonstrating credibility and competence so he’s now trying this instead.
What was Anna Soubry trying when she backed Ken Clarke up over that?
https://order-order.com/2018/08/08/soubry-burka-is-a-peculiar-concept/
Seems to me that Boris is being attacked because he's Boris not because of what he said.0 -
Another night, another batshit Brexit post.CD13 said:Mr Pointer,
If you buy a house inside Pentonville Jail, you might think it a bad idea on reflection.0 -
Can’t make a fuss now, we bin to the World Cup.Benpointer said:
Well I for one wish they'd put some more of it in the public domain. As it is, they are allowing Russia to continue with their obfuscation.Casino_Royale said:
I have a very close relative in CTU who told me we don’t know the half of it.Big_G_NorthWales said:Breaking News
US confirms Russia used the nerve agent in Salisbury and new sanctions will be imposed on Russia. The US own investigation backs up UK findings
MI5 and the police have heaps of evidence that’s not in the public domain that implicates Russia completely and brazenly from start to finish.
We had a chance to kick the ball out of play when in possession, can’t ask for that now the other sides been given the ball back.
0 -
If that was his intention why did he use inflammatory terms like 'letter box' and 'bank robber'? He used them because it would generate a reaction- and it has.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the end of debating a topical issue in the context of Denmark's ban that is in the news.Mexicanpete said:
Do you not understand? Johnson wantonly wrote his article to achieve an end. Johnson is not the victim here, infact I suspect he sees himself as the victor (in this little battle at least).Philip_Thompson said:
What was Ken Clarke trying when he described people wearing the burqa as looking like they were wearing a bag?Casino_Royale said:It wasn’t a gaff. He’s worked out (correctly) he no longer has a path to the leadership through demonstrating credibility and competence so he’s now trying this instead.
What was Anna Soubry trying when she backed Ken Clarke up over that?
https://order-order.com/2018/08/08/soubry-burka-is-a-peculiar-concept/
Seems to me that Boris is being attacked because he's Boris not because of what he said.0 -
Whatever - I don't feel that strongly about it.kle4 said:
Now you are just being ridiculous - 'any of it'? You seriously do not believe police investigations involving foreign states attempting to assassinate people on British soil should not need to, in real time, publicly disclose all the details of that investigation? Why do you even consider that to be 'hiding' it from the public? Do you not believe in confidential and exempt information?Benpointer said:
What's your argument for hiding any of it from the public?kle4 said:
If that is your reasoning, as expressed, you seem to be suggesting every detail should be put in the public domain as a matter of course, or at least presuming it should be very simple to do so with very serious matters. I believe in openness, but I think a call for such expansive openness, in such a complicated and sensitive matter, is a bit unreasonable.Benpointer said:
For me it's about openness.kle4 said:
I think that is rather unfair - Russian obfuscation would continue regardless, as will those believing alternate hypotheses, even the amazingly rid of it that is objected to.Benpointer said:
Well I for one wish they'd put some more of it in the public domain. As it is, they are allowing Russia to continue with their obfuscation.Casino_Royale said:
I have a very close relative in CTU who told me we don’t know the half of it.Big_G_NorthWales said:Breaking News
US confirms Russia used the nerve agent in Salisbury and new sanctions will be imposed on Russia. The US own investigation backs up UK findings
MI5 and the police have heaps of evidence that’s not in the public domain that implicates Russia completely and brazenly from start to finish.
@Casino_Royale asserteds fully as possible.
That is so far away from my position I don't even see it worthwhile to continue discussing it. Our investigative authorities do need to be ultimately publicly accountable, and justice should be done and be seen to be done, but 'what is the argument for hiding any of it from the public' is a question which would seem to indicate you don't accept that any detail can reasonably be withheld even for the period of the investigation! And as pointed out we have periodically received further details in this investigation, it is not all being hidden, so your entire premise is preposterous.0 -
This is going to upset a few. I quite like Idris Elba and think he's a great choice.
https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1027295437588520962-1 -
To be fair, it's reasonable to be civil at all times. And some Muslims and some Remainers are equally sensitive to any criticism. I'll try and give trigger warnings when I write about Brexit in the future.0
-
I have seen a sneak peak of Boris’ next article.Mexicanpete said:
If that was his intention why did he use inflammatory terms like 'letter box' and 'bank robber'? He used them because it would generate a reaction- and it has.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the end of debating a topical issue in the context of Denmark's ban that is in the news.Mexicanpete said:
Do you not understand? Johnson wantonly wrote his article to achieve an end. Johnson is not the victim here, infact I suspect he sees himself as the victor (in this little battle at least).Philip_Thompson said:
What was Ken Clarke trying when he described people wearing the burqa as looking like they were wearing a bag?Casino_Royale said:It wasn’t a gaff. He’s worked out (correctly) he no longer has a path to the leadership through demonstrating credibility and competence so he’s now trying this instead.
What was Anna Soubry trying when she backed Ken Clarke up over that?
https://order-order.com/2018/08/08/soubry-burka-is-a-peculiar-concept/
Seems to me that Boris is being attacked because he's Boris not because of what he said.
He says he has always felt people wearing crucifix were double bluffing, and claims they may be vampires.
He also refers to Buddha as a fat bastard.
0 -
this is a criminal investigation. Do you think all police investigations should be open source?Benpointer said:
What's your argument for hiding any of it from the public?kle4 said:
If that is your reasoning, as expressed, you seem to be suggesting every detail should be put in the public domain as a matter of course, or at least presuming it should be very simple to do so with very serious matters. I believe in openness, but I think a call for such expansive openness, in such a complicated and sensitive matter, is a bit unreasonable.Benpointer said:
For me it's about openness.kle4 said:
I think that is rather unfair - Russian obfuscation would continue regardless, as will those believing alternate hypotheses, even the amazingly ridiculous ones. I can see few benefits to putting considerably more out there than we have to date, particularly as they have periodically released information, so it is just the pace of it that is objected to.Benpointer said:
Well I for one wish they'd put some more of it in the public domain. As it is, they are allowing Russia to continue with their obfuscation.Casino_Royale said:
I have a very close relative in CTU who told me we don’t know the half of it.Big_G_NorthWales said:Breaking News
US confirms Russia used the nerve agent in Salisbury and new sanctions will be imposed on Russia. The US own investigation backs up UK findings
MI5 and the police have heaps of evidence that’s not in the public domain that implicates Russia completely and brazenly from start to finish.
@Casino_Royale asserted that "MI5 and the police have heaps of evidence that’s not in the public domain that implicates Russia completely and brazenly from start to finish." Now, Casino may be mistaken in that assertion but assuming he is not, MI5 should issue that information and embarrass Russia as fully as possible.0 -
Blimey - A quick look at that mess of a front page and I thought for a moment Idris had been targetting Corrie stars! That would have been upsetting!TheScreamingEagles said:This is going to upset a few. I quite like Idris Elba.
https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1027295437588520962
Great choice for Bond imo.0 -
As an atheist if your religion is hostile to me and my life choices ... suggesting that I'm a sinner, going to hell, a heretic, an apostate, a kafir or deserving of death . . . Then I think it's fair for me to be hostile to your religion.Casino_Royale said:
That’s fair enough.Sean_F said:
I find outright hostility towards a mainstream religion unpleasant, but I think that people are entitled to express such hostility.Casino_Royale said:
I’d say 3 is absolutely fair game. I personally find outright hostility to religions (e.g. by atheists) rather rude, but that’s almost always directed at Christianity.Sean_F said:
Islamophobia has three strands.CD13 said:Mr Eagles,
Islamophobia is now the term used, isn't it? A dislike of Islam is also a peculiar concoction. Like 'Christianophobia' - a morbid dislike of the religion - that would be an opinion which many atheists might take (including some of my friends).
It's only when it comes down to disliking or hating individuals because they are Christian or Muslim that it becomes a real problem. Perhaps a new term is needed?
1. Prejudice against Muslims,
2. Hostility to Islam
3. Hostility to political manifestations of Islam.
1. Should be condemned, 2 and 3 are fair game.
I am very close to (2) on Scientology and Jehovah’s Witness, both of which I find absolutely barking.0 -
-
I refer you to my previous answer.nielh said:
this is a criminal investigation. Do you think all police investigations should be open source?Benpointer said:
What's your argument for hiding any of it from the public?kle4 said:
If that is your reasoning, as expressed, you seem to be suggesting every detail should be put in the public domain as a matter of course, or at least presuming it should be very simple to do so with very serious matters. I believe in openness, but I think a call for such expansive openness, in such a complicated and sensitive matter, is a bit unreasonable.Benpointer said:
For me it's about openness.kle4 said:
I think that is rather unfair - Russian obfuscation would continue regardless, as will those believing alternate hypotheses, even the amazingly ridiculous ones. I can see few benefits to putting considerably more out there than we have to date, particularly as they have periodically released information, so it is just the pace of it that is objected to.Benpointer said:
Well I for one wish they'd put some more of it in the public domain. As it is, they are allowing Russia to continue with their obfuscation.Casino_Royale said:
I have a very close relative in CTU who told me we don’t know the half of it.Big_G_NorthWales said:Breaking News
US confirms Russia used the nerve agent in Salisbury and new sanctions will be imposed on Russia. The US own investigation backs up UK findings
MI5 and the police have heaps of evidence that’s not in the public domain that implicates Russia completely and brazenly from start to finish.
@Casino_Royale asserted that "MI5 and the police have heaps of evidence that’s not in the public domain that implicates Russia completely and brazenly from start to finish." Now, Casino may be mistaken in that assertion but assuming he is not, MI5 should issue that information and embarrass Russia as fully as possible.0 -
If the house is that shit that living on the street is a better option then I'd say yes!Benpointer said:
I'd find it difficult to leave my house and go and live on the street. Does that mean I made a mistake in ever buying a house?CD13 said:Mr Pointer,
Let's look at this logically.
Let's assume that the EU is difficult to leave - whether because of their own rules, or because it would cause damage to us. Either way, it still suggests it could have been a mistake to join.
Not exactly a recommendation to stay.0 -
For the same reason Ken Clarke described it as like wearing a bag and inappropriate for the court room.Mexicanpete said:
If that was his intention why did he use inflammatory terms like 'letter box' and 'bank robber'? He used them because it would generate a reaction- and it has.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the end of debating a topical issue in the context of Denmark's ban that is in the news.Mexicanpete said:
Do you not understand? Johnson wantonly wrote his article to achieve an end. Johnson is not the victim here, infact I suspect he sees himself as the victor (in this little battle at least).Philip_Thompson said:
What was Ken Clarke trying when he described people wearing the burqa as looking like they were wearing a bag?Casino_Royale said:It wasn’t a gaff. He’s worked out (correctly) he no longer has a path to the leadership through demonstrating credibility and competence so he’s now trying this instead.
What was Anna Soubry trying when she backed Ken Clarke up over that?
https://order-order.com/2018/08/08/soubry-burka-is-a-peculiar-concept/
Seems to me that Boris is being attacked because he's Boris not because of what he said.
For the same reason Emily Thornberry said she wouldn't want her child treated by someone wearing a burka or her mother looked after by someone wearing it.
Why are we bashing on Boris and not at the time Clarke, Soubry or Thornberry?0 -
Somehow I doubt whether MI5 would be reluctant to embarrass Corbyn if they had the chanceMarqueeMark said:
The reluctance maybe because it would embarrass Corbyn to boot. They don't want domestic political distractions.Benpointer said:
For me it's about openness.kle4 said:
I think that is rather unfair - Russian obfuscation would continue regardless, as will those believing alternate hypotheses, even the amazingly ridiculous ones. I can see few benefits to putting considerably more out there than we have to date, particularly as they have periodically released information, so it is just the pace of it that is objected to.Benpointer said:
Well I for one wish they'd put some more of it in the public domain. As it is, they are allowing Russia to continue with their obfuscation.Casino_Royale said:
I have a very close relative in CTU who told me we don’t know the half of it.Big_G_NorthWales said:Breaking News
US confirms Russia used the nerve agent in Salisbury and new sanctions will be imposed on Russia. The US own investigation backs up UK findings
MI5 and the police have heaps of evidence that’s not in the public domain that implicates Russia completely and brazenly from start to finish.
@Casino_Royale asserted that "MI5 and the police have heaps of evidence that’s not in the public domain that implicates Russia completely and brazenly from start to finish." Now, Casino may be mistaken in that assertion but assuming he is not, MI5 should issue that information and embarrass Russia as fully as possible.
0 -
NEW THREAD
0 -
Mr Thompson,
Your life and eventual destination is up to you completely.
The sort of people you describe remind me of project fear. Oops! Sorry, I forgot the trigger warning for the sensitive souls of Remain.
Whatever, I wish you all well, including Mrs Soubry who I'm sure is a very nice lady.0 -
Everything is now 'hate speech'. You can't make a joke about anything.Cookie said:The burka is fair game, as far as I'm concerned. I don't know where I stand on banning it - though foreign countries we purport to feel quite freindly wit have done so. But I am absolutely in favour of ridiculing it. We're not having a go at Muslims here, we're having a go at medeival throwbacks who don't believe an adult woman should be seen. We can defend wearing it in the name of liberty and free choice, but ridiculing it seems a prett reasonable response, just as we might ridicule Tommy Robinson's mob of halfwits.
I think peoples tolerance to this politically correct totalitarianism is seriously diminishing.
0 -
I think I would rather have the shagged-your-wife-whiff-waff Boris over the pretendy-white-supremacist Boris.
Juding by some of the more... burbling Brexits on here, I realise that's not a uniform view.
0 -
You can't even boorishly abuse vulnerable groups of women for your own political aim without people objecting!nielh said:
Everything is now 'hate speech'. You can't make a joke about anything.
I think peoples tolerance to this politically correct totalitarianism is seriously diminishing.
It's HEALTH AND SAFETY GONE MAD.0 -
Yes I do. I think people are bashing on him because of Europe and his role in the referendum not because of what he wrote which was reasonable. They DO look like a post box, likethey're wearing a bag or like a bank robber.Stereotomy said:
Do you seriously believe that was his goal, or did you write this as some sort of mental exercise?Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the end of debating a topical issue in the context of Denmark's ban that is in the news.Mexicanpete said:
Do you not understand? Johnson wantonly wrote his article to achieve an end. Johnson is not the victim here, infact I suspect he sees himself as the victor (in this little battle at least).Philip_Thompson said:
What was Ken Clarke trying when he described people wearing the burqa as looking like they were wearing a bag?Casino_Royale said:It wasn’t a gaff. He’s worked out (correctly) he no longer has a path to the leadership through demonstrating credibility and competence so he’s now trying this instead.
What was Anna Soubry trying when she backed Ken Clarke up over that?
https://order-order.com/2018/08/08/soubry-burka-is-a-peculiar-concept/
Seems to me that Boris is being attacked because he's Boris not because of what he said.
Oh sorry one wasn't Boris. As Meatloaf says 2 out of 3 ain't bad.0 -
I hate to admit it but I am with Boris on this one. I have lived in Middle East for many years and have many Muslim friends of various persuasions - and the first thing to note is that Islam dies not state that woman should be covered up. It states 'modesty' which is generally interpreted as not showing bare arms, legs etc and typically wearing a loose fitting headscarf.
Anything beyond that is not religion...but old fashioned conservatism and plain old archaic bigotry.
Many large organisations like banks - but also government bodies - state that anyone who interacts with customers are not allowed to cover their face. These are Muslim owned/operated organisations in Muslim countries.
Don't mix up religion with bigotry (although in the case if Boris he also happens to be a bigot -and an idiot)0 -
Context is important here. Why did Boris bring this up now? This week, this summer?Penddu said:I hate to admit it but I am with Boris on this one. I have lived in Middle East for many years and have many Muslim friends of various persuasions - and the first thing to note is that Islam dies not state that woman should be covered up. It states 'modesty' which is generally interpreted as not showing bare arms, legs etc and typically wearing a loose fitting headscarf.
Anything beyond that is not religion...but old fashioned conservatism and plain old archaic bigotry.
Many large organisations like banks - but also government bodies - state that anyone who interacts with customers are not allowed to cover their face. These are Muslim owned/operated organisations in Muslim countries.
Don't mix up religion with bigotry (although in the case if Boris he also happens to be a bigot -and an idiot)
I can't begin to guess...0 -
Because this week, this summer was when Denmark banned the burqa. It was in response to that.rottenborough said:
Context is important here. Why did Boris bring this up now? This week, this summer?Penddu said:I hate to admit it but I am with Boris on this one. I have lived in Middle East for many years and have many Muslim friends of various persuasions - and the first thing to note is that Islam dies not state that woman should be covered up. It states 'modesty' which is generally interpreted as not showing bare arms, legs etc and typically wearing a loose fitting headscarf.
Anything beyond that is not religion...but old fashioned conservatism and plain old archaic bigotry.
Many large organisations like banks - but also government bodies - state that anyone who interacts with customers are not allowed to cover their face. These are Muslim owned/operated organisations in Muslim countries.
Don't mix up religion with bigotry (although in the case if Boris he also happens to be a bigot -and an idiot)
I can't begin to guess...0 -
And allows them to identify and murder the sources of that information?Benpointer said:
For me it's about openness.kle4 said:
I think that is rather unfair - Russian obfuscation would continue regardless, as will those believing alternate hypotheses, even the amazingly ridiculous ones. I can see few benefits to putting considerably more out there than we have to date, particularly as they have periodically released information, so it is just the pace of it that is objected to.Benpointer said:
Well I for one wish they'd put some more of it in the public domain. As it is, they are allowing Russia to continue with their obfuscation.Casino_Royale said:
I have a very close relative in CTU who told me we don’t know the half of it.Big_G_NorthWales said:Breaking News
US confirms Russia used the nerve agent in Salisbury and new sanctions will be imposed on Russia. The US own investigation backs up UK findings
MI5 and the police have heaps of evidence that’s not in the public domain that implicates Russia completely and brazenly from start to finish.
@Casino_Royale asserted that "MI5 and the police have heaps of evidence that’s not in the public domain that implicates Russia completely and brazenly from start to finish." Now, Casino may be mistaken in that assertion but assuming he is not, MI5 should issue that information and embarrass Russia as fully as possible.0 -
Unfortunate headline to have just over a statement referring to a pervet though!TheScreamingEagles said:This is going to upset a few. I quite like Idris Elba and think he's a great choice.
https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/10272954375885209620
