politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What might the Tories learn from Labour
Comments
-
Civil action incoming perhaps.Richard_Nabavi said:
Actually it was probably the correct decision. The prosecution had to prove their case of criminal negligence beyond reasonable doubt. That's a very high bar, and rightly so.nico67 said:Utterly disgraceful decision. What were the jury thinking . If hadn’t done that illegal manoeuvre then he would have had time to pull out and not crash .
The jury should hang their heads in shame .0 -
One hopes not with passengers onboard ?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Borough, Look North, a night or two ago, reported that long trains due for some part of Yorkshire have been delayed by about two years.
A couple of hours is hardly unusual, but years... ?
0 -
Interesting - this notion was picked up this very morning by that left-wing commie rag, City AM:MarqueeMark said:
I reckon a lengthy stint as Home Secretary would make most anybody a xenophobe, in the sense that you really are having to deal with some of the worst people imaginable. A very good friend of mine is very right on, but in her capacity as an immigration tribunal judge she occasionally wishes she had the ability to smite, such are some of the scummy people she is asked to sit in judgment on. And these aren't even the ones trying to blow us up....
I dare say that if asked, Theresa May would say the Home Secretary is the one in possession of a much fuller data set on the risks we are exposed to by letting Johnny Foreigner live amongst us. She doesn't see much milk of human kindness, yet is expected to dispense it by those whose disposition is always to see the best in people.
http://www.cityam.com/274358/theresa-may-home-secretary-dressed-up-prime-minister0 -
The more people spell out the basis of anti-Muslim prejudice, the better, as I said. I think people will understand what you've said very well.Sean_F said:
You seem to struggle with reading comprehension.Chris said:
The more upfront you are about justifying prejudice against Muslims in general because of the actions of Muslim terrorists the better. Clarity is good.Sean_F said:
If people do horrible things to other people, in the name of their religion, you can't try and brush aside their religious views as irrelevant.Chris said:
And in 100% of cases, the bigots here will defend their anti-Muslim prejudice on the basis that it's really "anti-terrorist". And at the same time they will condemn any criticism of the state of Israel on the basis that it's antisemitic.Sandpit said:
You're mistaking anti-terrorist prejudice, and anti-integration prejudice (such as the schools being boycotted for teaching sex education), for anti-Muslim prejudice.Chris said:
You make my point.TOPPING said:
We have yet to become victims of terrorists who operate under the flag of the Jews. This is what has happened wrt Islam, however misguided (Islamic terrorism hasn't operated under the flag of the Jews, obvs).Chris said:
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.Richard_Nabavi said:An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent to which anti-Muslim and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Muslim prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
The readiness to find excuses for anti-Muslim prejudice is only too apparent.
That fools no one with half a brain.0 -
Okay, next time I do something bad I'll say it was in the name of all brown-eyed people. Presumably any ensuing discrimination against brown-eyed people would be unfair, but not baseless.TOPPING said:
It would make it understandable that certain people would look at Jews and have concerns that they were in some way condoning it, yes. Is that anti-semitic? No because anti-semitism is a baseless hatred of Jews. If the Jews were going around bombing the Circle Line in the name of Jews, then any discrimination against Jews wouldn't be baseless.Chris said:
If there were, would that justify antisemitism?Sean_F said:
Are there British Jews who blow up their fellow citizens, and claim to be acting in the name of their religion?Chris said:
The point is that just because there are terrorist attacks by people who belong to particular groups - be they Jewish, Roman Catholic, Islamic or whatever - that in no way justifies prejudice against those groups.Pulpstar said:
Sure, but you also need to transpose to a world where we've had multiple Jewish terrorist attacks in the last 20 or so years.Chris said:
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.Richard_Nabavi said:An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent t This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
Are people unaware that Jewish groups used to use terrorist tactics? Did that justify antisemitism? Of course not.
Can people really be ignorant that there were periods in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when there was popular agitation in this country against Jews because the areas where Jewish migrants had settled seemed alien and "other"? Was antisemitism understandable or excusable then?
The answer from today's apologists for anti-Muslim prejudice today is a resounding "Yes".
Your argument is so stupid that it makes Theresa May look like Einstein.
It would of course be grossly unfair on all those law-abiding uninvolved in terrorism Jews.0 -
1. You do not win arguments by calling your opponent stupid.Chris said:
If there were, would that justify antisemitism?Sean_F said:
Are there British Jews who blow up their fellow citizens, and claim to be acting in the name of their religion?Chris said:
The point is that just because there are terrorist attacks by people who belong to particular groups - be they Jewish, Roman Catholic, Islamic or whatever - that in no way justifies prejudice against those groups.Pulpstar said:
Sure, but you also need to transpose to a world where we've had multiple Jewish terrorist attacks in the last 20 or so years.Chris said:
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.Richard_Nabavi said:An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the question of the extent to which anti-Muslim and other prejudice exists in the party, I think that Baroness Warsi has a point, although perhaps she overstates it. At the very least it is an issue which should, as Ms Cyclefree argues, be taken seriously. More generally, I think that a soft anti-Muslim prejudice has become normalised quite widely in the UK. This is perhaps not surprising; after all, we have been the victims of some very nasty Islamist terrorist attacks, and some areas of the UK have become conspicuously 'other' in a way which is bound to be unsettling. All the more reason for ensuring that Islamophobia is vigorously addressed and challenged.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
Are people unaware that Jewish groups used to use terrorist tactics? Did that justify antisemitism? Of course not.
Can people really be ignorant that there were periods in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when there was popular agitation in this country against Jews because the areas where Jewish migrants had settled seemed alien and "other"? Was antisemitism understandable or excusable then?
The answer from today's apologists for anti-Muslim prejudice today is a resounding "Yes".
Your argument is so stupid that it makes Theresa May look like Einstein.
2. Intelligent people do not need to have point 1. explained to them.0 -
However, I can't help noticing I seem to be alone in objecting to this stuff. Maybe I should take that hint at least.0
-
That’s a very very dangerous philosophy you are espousingYBarddCwsc said:
I understand, but the present population of the Crimea is overwhelming Russian.OldKingCole said:
The Crimea was resettled with 'ethnic Russians' during the war because Stalin didn't trust the Tartar in habitants.YBarddCwsc said:
Excellent analogy ... apart from, I guess, Russia adjoins the Crimea, and Australia is the other end of the world from Britain.williamglenn said:
When you start talking about ethnicity in respect of Russia and Ukraine it shows that you've wholly bought into the way the Kremlin wants you to see it.
Russia is a multinational state, and the fact that another place might have a majority 'ethnically Russian' population does not mean that it belongs to the Russian state. The same logic could be used to say that Australia is British.
I believe, for example, 27% of Estonia’s population is ethnically Russian and they are concentrated near the Russian border.
Should Russia have the right to occupy that land to further the cry of ethnic-nationalism?
That’s the policy that gave us the Sudetenland0 -
How quickly can CCHQ's roubles be funnelled to Chuka ?Tissue_Price said:0 -
You're arguing against points of view that nobody in this thread is expressing.Chris said:
The more people spell out the basis of anti-Muslim prejudice, the better, as I said. I think people will understand what you've said very well.Sean_F said:
You seem to struggle with reading comprehension.Chris said:
The more upfront you are about justifying prejudice against Muslims in general because of the actions of Muslim terrorists the better. Clarity is good.Sean_F said:
If people do horrible things to other people, in the name of their religion, you can't try and brush aside their religious views as irrelevant.Chris said:
And in 100% of cases, the bigots here will defend their anti-Muslim prejudice on the basis that it's really "anti-terrorist". And at the same time they will condemn any criticism of the state of Israel on the basis that it's antisemitic.Sandpit said:
You're mistaking anti-terrorist prejudice, and anti-integration prejudice (such as the schools being boycotted for teaching sex education), for anti-Muslim prejudice.Chris said:
You make my point.TOPPING said:
We have yet to become victims of terrorists who operate under the flag of the Jews. This is what has happened wrt Islam, however misguided (Islamic terrorism hasn't operated under the flag of the Jews, obvs).Chris said:
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.Richard_Nabavi said:An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
The readiness to find excuses for anti-Muslim prejudice is only too apparent.
That fools no one with half a brain.0 -
It's worth noting that Remainers are heavily downweighted in that poll to get them to 48% of the sample. If in fact what is happening is false recall, Labour may be doing substantially better, given their much better showing with Remainers.Tissue_Price said:
0 -
he should go and have a bit of a restSean_F said:
You're arguing against points of view that nobody in this thread is expressing.Chris said:
The more people spell out the basis of anti-Muslim prejudice, the better, as I said. I think people will understand what you've said very well.Sean_F said:
You seem to struggle with reading comprehension.Chris said:
The more upfront you are about justifying prejudice against Muslims in general because of the actions of Muslim terrorists the better. Clarity is good.Sean_F said:
If people do horrible things to other people, in the name of their religion, you can't try and brush aside their religious views as irrelevant.Chris said:
And in 100% of cases, the bigots here will defend their anti-Muslim prejudice on the basis that it's really "anti-terrorist". And at the same time they will condemn any criticism of the state of Israel on the basis that it's antisemitic.Sandpit said:
You're mistaking anti-terrorist prejudice, and anti-integration prejudice (such as the schools being boycotted for teaching sex education), for anti-Muslim prejudice.Chris said:
You make my point.TOPPING said:
We have yet to become victims of terrorists who operate under the flag of the Jews. This is what has happened wrt Islam, however misguided (Islamic terrorism hasn't operated under the flag of the Jews, obvs).Chris said:
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.Richard_Nabavi said:An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
The readiness to find excuses for anti-Muslim prejudice is only too apparent.
That fools no one with half a brain.0 -
Why should they?FrancisUrquhart said:
On a related note, I didn't realize a massive problem the BBC have with BritBox. Apparently, they can only put content they have made themselves on there, so the likes of Bodyguard won't be part of it.Sandpit said:
You'll see nothing about it in the media - it's their legislation, bought and paid for.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Urquhart, thanks for posting that.
Not like we'll see any actual reporting of Article 13 on the news...
In an ideal world an organisation like the BBC should pick this up and run with it, but nowadays they seem too worried about an anti-BBC backlash from other media to go near it.
This is the sort of crap that over time makes people vote to leave the EU.
Now, in theory they perhaps can start to buy rights to shows, both the "live screening" and then the future digital distribution, but if you are a third party production company Netflix and Amazon have very deep pockets.
I don't see how the BBC can compete with that given their current model.
If they are a commercial organisation they should behave commercially. If they are funded by levy they should have a different remit0 -
If some brown-eyed people thought that the non-brown eyed should be killed, or subjugated, then that would be correct.Stereotomy said:
Okay, next time I do something bad I'll say it was in the name of all brown-eyed people. Presumably any ensuing discrimination against brown-eyed people would be unfair, but not baseless.TOPPING said:
It would make it understandable that certain people would look at Jews and have concerns that they were in some way condoning it, yes. Is that anti-semitic? No because anti-semitism is a baseless hatred of Jews. If the Jews were going around bombing the Circle Line in the name of Jews, then any discrimination against Jews wouldn't be baseless.Chris said:
If there were, would that justify antisemitism?Sean_F said:
Are there British Jews who blow up their fellow citizens, and claim to be acting in the name of their religion?Chris said:
The point is that just because there are terrorist attacks by people who belong to particular groups - be they Jewish, Roman Catholic, Islamic or whatever - that in no way justifies prejudice against those groups.Pulpstar said:
Sure, but you also need to transpose to a world where we've had multiple Jewish terrorist attacks in the last 20 or so years.Chris said:
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.Richard_Nabavi said:An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
Are people unaware that Jewish groups used to use terrorist tactics? Did that justify antisemitism? Of course not.
Can people really be ignorant that there were periods in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when there was popular agitation in this country against Jews because the areas where Jewish migrants had settled seemed alien and "other"? Was antisemitism understandable or excusable then?
The answer from today's apologists for anti-Muslim prejudice today is a resounding "Yes".
Your argument is so stupid that it makes Theresa May look like Einstein.
It would of course be grossly unfair on all those law-abiding uninvolved in terrorism Jews.0 -
Are people forgetting they voted to leave ?AlastairMeeks said:
It's worth noting that Remainers are heavily downweighted in that poll to get them to 48% of the sample. If in fact what is happening is false recall, Labour may be doing substantially better, given their much better showing with Remainers.Tissue_Price said:0 -
Or lying. Perhaps.Pulpstar said:
Are people forgetting they voted to leave ?AlastairMeeks said:
It's worth noting that Remainers are heavily downweighted in that poll to get them to 48% of the sample. If in fact what is happening is false recall, Labour may be doing substantially better, given their much better showing with Remainers.Tissue_Price said:0 -
You are trying to be droll but the answer is yes.Stereotomy said:
Okay, next time I do something bad I'll say it was in the name of all brown-eyed people. Presumably any ensuing discrimination against brown-eyed people would be unfair, but not baseless.TOPPING said:
It would make it understandable that certain people would look at Jews and have concerns that they were in some way condoning it, yes. Is that anti-semitic? No because anti-semitism is a baseless hatred of Jews. If the Jews were going around bombing the Circle Line in the name of Jews, then any discrimination against Jews wouldn't be baseless.Chris said:
If there were, would that justify antisemitism?Sean_F said:
Are there British Jews who blow up their fellow citizens, and claim to be acting in the name of their religion?Chris said:
The point is that just because there are terrorist attacks by people who belong to particular groups - be they Jewish, Roman Catholic, Islamic or whatever - that in no way justifies prejudice against those groups.Pulpstar said:
Sure, but you also need to transpose to a world where we've had multiple Jewish terrorist attacks in the last 20 or so years.Chris said:
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.Richard_Nabavi said:An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the questsly addressed and challenged.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
Are people unaware that Jewish groups used to use terrorist tactics? Did that justify antisemitism? Of course not.
Can people really be ignorant that there were periods in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when there was popular agitation in this country against Jews because the areas where Jewish migrants had settled seemed alien and "other"? Was antisemitism understandable or excusable then?
The answer from today's apologists for anti-Muslim prejudice today is a resounding "Yes".
Your argument is so stupid that it makes Theresa May look like Einstein.
It would of course be grossly unfair on all those law-abiding uninvolved in terrorism Jews.0 -
Could be, although older and Conservative voters are also heavily downweightedAlastairMeeks said:
It's worth noting that Remainers are heavily downweighted in that poll to get them to 48% of the sample. If in fact what is happening is false recall, Labour may be doing substantially better, given their much better showing with Remainers.Tissue_Price said:0 -
I have no thought that I'm going to "win an argument" here against anti-Muslim prejudice. There's far too much of it about, and obviously far too many people here feel comfortable with it to think clearly about what they're saying. But there's a certain satisfaction in pointing out the sheer bone-headed stupidity of arguments like the one above.Ishmael_Z said:
1. You do not win arguments by calling your opponent stupid.Chris said:
If there were, would that justify antisemitism?Sean_F said:
Are there British Jews who blow up their fellow citizens, and claim to be acting in the name of their religion?Chris said:
The point is that just because there are terrorist attacks by people who belong to particular groups - be they Jewish, Roman Catholic, Islamic or whatever - that in no way justifies prejudice against those groups.Pulpstar said:
Sure, but you also need to transpose to a world where we've had multiple Jewish terrorist attacks in the last 20 or so years.Chris said:I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
Are people unaware that Jewish groups used to use terrorist tactics? Did that justify antisemitism? Of course not.
Can people really be ignorant that there were periods in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when there was popular agitation in this country against Jews because the areas where Jewish migrants had settled seemed alien and "other"? Was antisemitism understandable or excusable then?
The answer from today's apologists for anti-Muslim prejudice today is a resounding "Yes".
Your argument is so stupid that it makes Theresa May look like Einstein.0 -
Those figures see May's Tories have almost exactly the same lead over Labour Blair's New Labour had over the Tories in 2001 when Blair won his second landslide. Corbyn is now in Hague territory if correctTissue_Price said:0 -
The error came well before he took off that day, but yes he obviously thought he would get away with it.Dura_Ace said:
The error came before then. He didn't have appropriate speed or altitude at the start and so should not have initiated. My wild speculation is that he did check (it would be almost impossible not to just out of reflexive habit) but thought he could get away with it because the Hunter is a forgiving old girl.Sandpit said:
He should have abandoned at the top of the loop and rolled out, as you well know *everyone* checks their altitude at the top of a loop...
As @Richard_Nabavi says below Gross Negligence is a high bar, but this must have been bloody close given that it was a public display. He didn't even crash on the field.
It's a bit like watching this:
youtube.com/watch?v=U4ZjzC_amRg
and thinking of the pilot saying over and over in his head that he doesn't need to go around, shes a forgiving old bird and it'll sort itself out.0 -
18% looks massively high for Green-Tigger-UKIP-other though.HYUFD said:
Those figures see May's Tories have almost exactly the same lead over Labour Blair's New Labour had over the Tories in 2001 when Blair won his second landslide. Corbyn is now in Hague territory if correctTissue_Price said:0 -
Yes, there was a similar downweighting last week.AlastairMeeks said:
It's worth noting that Remainers are heavily downweighted in that poll to get them to 48% of the sample. If in fact what is happening is false recall, Labour may be doing substantially better, given their much better showing with Remainers.Tissue_Price said:0 -
That is an option which the U.K. government has so far rejectedwilliamglenn said:
Whereby no deal = revocation.Charles said:
Completely irrelevantnico67 said:I see the last desperate attempt by May is to blame the EU for a deal she signed , a backstop she wanted and her red lines which meant a backstop was needed .
If the deals not acceptable to the principals then it’s not going to get signed
Either it is changed or there’s no deal
And why Grieve meeting with the French to bring it about is do problematic0 -
Is that unusual in the YouGov panel, though? I don't know the answer, but I wouldn't be too surprised if to get a representative sample they always have to downweight Remainers.AlastairMeeks said:
It's worth noting that Remainers are heavily downweighted in that poll to get them to 48% of the sample. If in fact what is happening is false recall, Labour may be doing substantially better, given their much better showing with Remainers.Tissue_Price said:0 -
In order to win an argument, you have to make one.Chris said:
I have no thought that I'm going to "win an argument" here against anti-Muslim prejudice. There's far too much of it about, and obviously far too many people here feel comfortable with it to think clearly about what they're saying. But there's a certain satisfaction in pointing out the sheer bone-headed stupidity of arguments like the one above.Ishmael_Z said:
1. You do not win arguments by calling your opponent stupid.Chris said:
If there were, would that justify antisemitism?Sean_F said:
Are there British Jews who blow up their fellow citizens, and claim to be acting in the name of their religion?Chris said:
The point is that just because there are terrorist attacks by people who belong to particular groups - be they Jewish, Roman Catholic, Islamic or whatever - that in no way justifies prejudice against those groups.Pulpstar said:
Sure, but you also need to transpose to a world where we've had multiple Jewish terrorist attacks in the last 20 or so years.Chris said:I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
Are people unaware that Jewish groups used to use terrorist tactics? Did that justify antisemitism? Of course not.
Can people really be ignorant that there were periods in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when there was popular agitation in this country against Jews because the areas where Jewish migrants had settled seemed alien and "other"? Was antisemitism understandable or excusable then?
The answer from today's apologists for anti-Muslim prejudice today is a resounding "Yes".
Your argument is so stupid that it makes Theresa May look like Einstein.0 -
According to the four tests, I can see only the barest room for doubt/wiggle room on the last, as there is still uncertainty on its precise boundaries:Dura_Ace said:
That's an amazing verdict given the facts. He committed to the inside loop at less than half the mandated altitude.Sandpit said:Breaking:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/08/shoreham-airshow-trial-pilot-andrew-hill-cleared-manslaughter/
Sounds like the jury failed to be convinced that he was grossly negligent.
the defendant owed a duty to the deceased to take care;
the defendant breached this duty;
the breach caused the death of the deceased; and
the defendant's negligence was gross, that is, it showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime and deserve punishment.
Which is why motorists usually face a charge of causing death by dangerous driving.0 -
LOL x 2Chris said:
I have no thought that I'm going to "win an argument" here against anti-Muslim prejudice. There's far too much of it about, and obviously far too many people here feel comfortable with it to think clearly about what they're saying. But there's a certain satisfaction in pointing out the sheer bone-headed stupidity of arguments like the one above.Ishmael_Z said:
1. You do not win arguments by calling your opponent stupid.Chris said:
If there were, would that justify antisemitism?Sean_F said:
Are there British Jews who blow up their fellow citizens, and claim to be acting in the name of their religion?Chris said:
The point is that just because there are terrorist attacks by people who belong to particular groups - be they Jewish, Roman Catholic, Islamic or whatever - that in no way justifies prejudice against those groups.Pulpstar said:
Sure, but you also need to transpose to a world where we've had multiple Jewish terrorist attacks in the last 20 or so years.Chris said:I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
Are people unaware that Jewish groups used to use terrorist tactics? Did that justify antisemitism? Of course not.
Can people really be ignorant that there were periods in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when there was popular agitation in this country against Jews because the areas where Jewish migrants had settled seemed alien and "other"? Was antisemitism understandable or excusable then?
The answer from today's apologists for anti-Muslim prejudice today is a resounding "Yes".
Your argument is so stupid that it makes Theresa May look like Einstein.
We're all tired and emotional and not thinking straight. Do you think we're all soft-headed lasses or something, Mr Treat Everyone With Respect?0 -
If so, that's a bit of a problem for their panel.Richard_Nabavi said:
Is that unusual in the YouGov panel, though? I don't know the answer, but I wouldn't be too surprised if to get a representative sample they always have to downweight Remainers.AlastairMeeks said:
It's worth noting that Remainers are heavily downweighted in that poll to get them to 48% of the sample. If in fact what is happening is false recall, Labour may be doing substantially better, given their much better showing with Remainers.Tissue_Price said:0 -
0
-
Mr. HYUFD, assuming the polling is correct. Recent evidence would suggest taking them with a pinch of salt (not least because May is the worst campaigner since John).0
-
See what I mean about the sheer bone-headed stupidity of the arguments attempting to justify racial or religious prejudice on the basis of the actions of particular members of races or religions?Sean_F said:
If some brown-eyed people thought that the non-brown eyed should be killed, or subjugated, then that would be correct.Stereotomy said:
Okay, next time I do something bad I'll say it was in the name of all brown-eyed people. Presumably any ensuing discrimination against brown-eyed people would be unfair, but not baseless.TOPPING said:
It would make it understandable that certain people would look at Jews and have concerns that they were in some way condoning it, yes. Is that anti-semitic? No because anti-semitism is a baseless hatred of Jews. If the Jews were going around bombing the Circle Line in the name of Jews, then any discrimination against Jews wouldn't be baseless.Chris said:
If there were, would that justify antisemitism?Sean_F said:
Are there British Jews who blow up their fellow citizens, and claim to be acting in the name of their religion?Chris said:
The point is that just because there are terrorist attacks by people who belong to particular groups - be they Jewish, Roman Catholic, Islamic or whatever - that in no way justifies prejudice against those groups.Pulpstar said:
Sure, but you also need to transpose to a world where we've had multiple Jewish terrorist attacks in the last 20 or so years.Chris said:I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
Are people unaware that Jewish groups used to use terrorist tactics? Did that justify antisemitism? Of course not.
Can people really be ignorant that there were periods in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when there was popular agitation in this country against Jews because the areas where Jewish migrants had settled seemed alien and "other"? Was antisemitism understandable or excusable then?
The answer from today's apologists for anti-Muslim prejudice today is a resounding "Yes".
Your argument is so stupid that it makes Theresa May look like Einstein.
It would of course be grossly unfair on all those law-abiding uninvolved in terrorism Jews.0 -
You'd think it would be the reverse, since they've upweighted younger people, and downweighted older respondents.Richard_Nabavi said:
Is that unusual in the YouGov panel, though? I don't know the answer, but I wouldn't be too surprised if to get a representative sample they always have to downweight Remainers.AlastairMeeks said:
It's worth noting that Remainers are heavily downweighted in that poll to get them to 48% of the sample. If in fact what is happening is false recall, Labour may be doing substantially better, given their much better showing with Remainers.Tissue_Price said:0 -
Is treating people with respect now a concept to be derided?TOPPING said:
LOL x 2Chris said:
I have no thought that I'm going to "win an argument" here against anti-Muslim prejudice. There's far too much of it about, and obviously far too many people here feel comfortable with it to think clearly about what they're saying. But there's a certain satisfaction in pointing out the sheer bone-headed stupidity of arguments like the one above.Ishmael_Z said:
1. You do not win arguments by calling your opponent stupid.Chris said:
If there were, would that justify antisemitism?Sean_F said:
Are there British Jews who blow up their fellow citizens, and claim to be acting in the name of their religion?Chris said:
The point is that just because there are terrorist attacks by people who belong to particular groups - be they Jewish, Roman Catholic, Islamic or whatever - that in no way justifies prejudice against those groups.Pulpstar said:
Sure, but you also need to transpose to a world where we've had multiple Jewish terrorist attacks in the last 20 or so years.Chris said:I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
Are people unaware that Jewish groups used to use terrorist tactics? Did that justify antisemitism? Of course not.
Can people really be ignorant that there were periods in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when there was popular agitation in this country against Jews because the areas where Jewish migrants had settled seemed alien and "other"? Was antisemitism understandable or excusable then?
The answer from today's apologists for anti-Muslim prejudice today is a resounding "Yes".
Your argument is so stupid that it makes Theresa May look like Einstein.
We're all tired and emotional and not thinking straight. Do you think we're all soft-headed lasses or something, Mr Treat Everyone With Respect?0 -
The occupation of Crimea by Putin is completely illegal, irrespective of the 1954 transfer, not least because the "Russian" population was only a majority because the entire surviving indigenous Crimean Tatar population of the peninsula, having lost 100,000 starved to death by the Soviets in the 1920s, were deported to Siberia in 1944.
A particularly terrible fate, since so few survived or were permitted to return after 1967. The Tatars, it should be noted, support Ukraine in this struggle.0 -
On the facts as I understand them I think that the jury very likely felt that the prosecution had failed to make out the final limb of the above. He would, in my view, almost certainly be negligent to a civil standard but criminal is hard to make out.Nigelb said:
According to the four tests, I can see only the barest room for doubt/wiggle room on the last, as there is still debate on its precise boundaries:Dura_Ace said:
That's an amazing verdict given the facts. He committed to the inside loop at less than half the mandated altitude.Sandpit said:Breaking:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/08/shoreham-airshow-trial-pilot-andrew-hill-cleared-manslaughter/
Sounds like the jury failed to be convinced that he was grossly negligent.
the defendant owed a duty to the deceased to take care;
the defendant breached this duty;
the breach caused the death of the deceased; and
the defendant's negligence was gross, that is, it showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime and deserve punishment.0 -
Jezza has lost his halo.dr_spyn said:https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1103993473156431874
Tis a funny old world.0 -
Fantastic - you uphold the principle of treating people with respect moments after calling posters on here stupid and unable to think clearly.Chris said:
Is treating people with respect now a concept to be derided?TOPPING said:
LOL x 2Chris said:
I have no thought that I'm going to "win an argument" here against anti-Muslim prejudice. There's far too much of it about, and obviously far too many people here feel comfortable with it to think clearly about what they're saying. But there's a certain satisfaction in pointing out the sheer bone-headed stupidity of arguments like the one above.Ishmael_Z said:
1. You do not win arguments by calling your opponent stupid.Chris said:
If there were, would that justify antisemitism?Sean_F said:
Are there British Jews who blow up their fellow citizens, and claim to be acting in the name of their religion?Chris said:
The point is that just because there are terrorist attacks by people who belong to particular groups - be they Jewish, Roman Catholic, Islamic or whatever - that in no way justifies prejudice against those groups.Pulpstar said:
Sure, but you also need to transpose to a world where we've had multiple Jewish terrorist attacks in the last 20 or so years.Chris said:I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
Are people unaware that Jewish groups used to use terrorist tactics? Did that justify antisemitism? Of course not.
Can people really be ignorant that there were periods in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when there was popular agitation in this country against Jews because the areas where Jewish migrants had settled seemed alien and "other"? Was antisemitism understandable or excusable then?
The answer from today's apologists for anti-Muslim prejudice today is a resounding "Yes".
Your argument is so stupid that it makes Theresa May look like Einstein.
We're all tired and emotional and not thinking straight. Do you think we're all soft-headed lasses or something, Mr Treat Everyone With Respect?0 -
In the report:Pulpstar said:
18% looks massively high for Green-Tigger-UKIP-other though.HYUFD said:
Those figures see May's Tories have almost exactly the same lead over Labour Blair's New Labour had over the Tories in 2001 when Blair won his second landslide. Corbyn is now in Hague territory if correctTissue_Price said:
SNP/Plaid: 5 (unch)
UKIP: 3 (-2)
Green 4 (unch)
Brexit Party: 3 (+1)
Other: 3 (unch)0 -
You're arguing against a straw man.Chris said:
See what I mean about the sheer bone-headed stupidity of the arguments attempting to justify racial or religious prejudice on the basis of the actions of particular members of races or religions?Sean_F said:
If some brown-eyed people thought that the non-brown eyed should be killed, or subjugated, then that would be correct.Stereotomy said:
Okay, next time I do something bad I'll say it was in the name of all brown-eyed people. Presumably any ensuing discrimination against brown-eyed people would be unfair, but not baseless.TOPPING said:
It would make it understandable that certain people would look at Jews and have concerns that they were in some way condoning it, yes. Is that anti-semitic? No because anti-semitism is a baseless hatred of Jews. If the Jews were going around bombing the Circle Line in the name of Jews, then any discrimination against Jews wouldn't be baseless.Chris said:
If there were, would that justify antisemitism?Sean_F said:
Are there British Jews who blow up their fellow citizens, and claim to be acting in the name of their religion?Chris said:
The point is that just because there are terrorist attacks by people who belong to particular groups - be they Jewish, Roman Catholic, Islamic or whatever - that in no way justifies prejudice against those groups.Pulpstar said:
Sure, but you also need to transpose to a world where we've had multiple Jewish terrorist attacks in the last 20 or so years.Chris said:I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
Are people unaware that Jewish groups used to use terrorist tactics? Did that justify antisemitism? Of course not.
Can people really be ignorant that there were periods in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when there was popular agitation in this country against Jews because the areas where Jewish migrants had settled seemed alien and "other"? Was antisemitism understandable or excusable then?
The answer from today's apologists for anti-Muslim prejudice today is a resounding "Yes".
Your argument is so stupid that it makes Theresa May look like Einstein.
It would of course be grossly unfair on all those law-abiding uninvolved in terrorism Jews.0 -
Though Tigger was on 14% a few weeks agoPulpstar said:
18% looks massively high for Green-Tigger-UKIP-other though.HYUFD said:
Those figures see May's Tories have almost exactly the same lead over Labour Blair's New Labour had over the Tories in 2001 when Blair won his second landslide. Corbyn is now in Hague territory if correctTissue_Price said:0 -
That arguing that people should be treated with respect isn't going to garner much support here, apparently.TOPPING said:
...that we're all irredeemable racists, or that you are wrong?Chris said:However, I can't help noticing I seem to be alone in objecting to this stuff. Maybe I should take that hint at least.
0 -
Though May still got over 40% in 2017 and is just holding that vote, most of the shift seems to be from Labour to the LDs and OthersMorris_Dancer said:Mr. HYUFD, assuming the polling is correct. Recent evidence would suggest taking them with a pinch of salt (not least because May is the worst campaigner since John).
0 -
Are the Tiggers going to run 500 (I expect they won't bother for instance in my constituency of Bassetlaw) odd candidates though ?HYUFD said:
Though Tigger was on 14% a few weeks agoPulpstar said:
18% looks massively high for Green-Tigger-UKIP-other though.HYUFD said:
Those figures see May's Tories have almost exactly the same lead over Labour Blair's New Labour had over the Tories in 2001 when Blair won his second landslide. Corbyn is now in Hague territory if correctTissue_Price said:
Oh hmm, those figures are without a fully fledged Tigger party. Looks like Labour are in the shit then.
Thanks for the breakdown @Harris_Tweed0 -
Can't think why there may be such a shift.HYUFD said:
Though May still got over 40% in 2017 and is just holding that vote, most of the shift seems to be from Labour to the LDs and OthersMorris_Dancer said:Mr. HYUFD, assuming the polling is correct. Recent evidence would suggest taking them with a pinch of salt (not least because May is the worst campaigner since John).
0 -
Maybe if the people of Crimea had elected a party backing a plebiscite, you know how like the SNP won elections in Scotland to trigger theirs.YBarddCwsc said:
Under what circumstance do you envisage the Government of the Ukraine would have given their assent for a plebiscite in the Crimea?Philip_Thompson said:
Well indeed. And had the majority voted for that peacefully then I would have no problem with that.YBarddCwsc said:
The legality of the transfer of the Crimea from Russia to the Ukraine in 1954 is highly debatable.williamglenn said:
You are reading something into my comments that I haven't said. Your starting position is that Ukraine "as presently conceived by the West is like Yugoslavia" and that Russia somehow has a right to claim territories with majority ethnic Russian populations. It is this argument I am disputing.YBarddCwsc said:
It is unbelievable that all the Remainers (Meeks, WilliamGlenn, Anazina) can't accept a very simple statement of the bleeding obvious.Sean_F said:
Re Crimea the issue is one of self-determination. There's not much doubt that most of the inhabitants view themselves as Russian and want to be part of Russia._Anazina_ said:
Canada adjoins the United States. Is it therefore naturally part of the United States?YBarddCwsc said:
Excellent analogy ... apart from, I guess, Russia adjoins the Crimea, and Australia is the other end of the world from Britain.williamglenn said:
When you start talking about ethnicity in respect of Russia and Ukraine it shows that you've wholly bought into the way the Kremlin wants you to see it.
Russia is a multinational state, and the fact that another place might have a majority 'ethnically Russian' population does not mean that it belongs to the Russian state. The same logic could be used to say that Australia is British.
Putin is for sure unpleasant, but nonetheless the inhabitants of the Crimea would vote to join Russia in a plebiscite.
Most rulers in that part of the world are unpleasant. Putin may be an unpleasant bastard, but he is an unpleasant Russian bastard and they're Russian.
According to wiki, Henry Kissinger stated it was possible Khruschev gave Crimea to Ukraine because he was drunk at the time.
My guess is that is not a basis for a long-lived solution.
If a province has a majority Russian population and it wants to join Russia, then I don't have a problem with that.
The fact the military invaded first and then the public under military occupation "voted" makes that void though.
Anything after a military occupation simply doesn't count.0 -
That sounds about right.DougSeal said:
On the facts as I understand them I think that the jury very likely felt that the prosecution had failed to make out the final limb of the above. He would, in my view, almost certainly be negligent to a civil standard but criminal is hard to make out.Nigelb said:
According to the four tests, I can see only the barest room for doubt/wiggle room on the last, as there is still debate on its precise boundaries:Dura_Ace said:
That's an amazing verdict given the facts. He committed to the inside loop at less than half the mandated altitude.Sandpit said:Breaking:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/08/shoreham-airshow-trial-pilot-andrew-hill-cleared-manslaughter/
Sounds like the jury failed to be convinced that he was grossly negligent.
the defendant owed a duty to the deceased to take care;
the defendant breached this duty;
the breach caused the death of the deceased; and
the defendant's negligence was gross, that is, it showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime and deserve punishment.
Inquests and a civil case to come. As you say, the latter has a lower burden of proof.0 -
There are 2 billion souls scattered throughout this world who are Muslim. Anybody who makes generalized assumptions about them as individuals is up a gum tree.0
-
What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.TOPPING said:
Fantastic - you uphold the principle of treating people with respect moments after calling posters on here stupid and unable to think clearly.Chris said:
Is treating people with respect now a concept to be derided?TOPPING said:
LOL x 2Chris said:
I have no thought that I'm going to "win an argument" here against anti-Muslim prejudice. There's far too much of it about, and obviously far too many people here feel comfortable with it to think clearly about what they're saying. But there's a certain satisfaction in pointing out the sheer bone-headed stupidity of arguments like the one above.Ishmael_Z said:
1. You do not win arguments by calling your opponent stupid.Chris said:
If there were, would that justify antisemitism?Sean_F said:
Are there British Jews who blow up their fellow citizens, and claim to be acting in the name of their religion?Chris said:
The point is that just because there are terrorist attacks by people who belong to particular groups - be they Jewish, Roman Catholic, Islamic or whatever - that in no way justifies prejudice against those groups.Pulpstar said:
Sure, but you also need to transpose to a world where we've had multiple Jewish terrorist attacks in the last 20 or so years.
Are people unaware that Jewish groups used to use terrorist tactics? Did that justify antisemitism? Of course not.
Can people really be ignorant that there were periods in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when there was popular agitation in this country against Jews because the areas where Jewish migrants had settled seemed alien and "other"? Was antisemitism understandable or excusable then?
The answer from today's apologists for anti-Muslim prejudice today is a resounding "Yes".
Your argument is so stupid that it makes Theresa May look like Einstein.
We're all tired and emotional and not thinking straight. Do you think we're all soft-headed lasses or something, Mr Treat Everyone With Respect?
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.0 -
It's too early to say that Labour are in trouble. The Conservative support looks to me to be very fragile; at the moment, it includes those happy with No Deal and those utterly horrified by the prospect of No Deal. It's hard to see how the party can navigate through the next few weeks without a rupture between those two parts of the coalition (and that's even without factoring in the likelihood that those currently supporting No Deal will in practice be horrified by the reality).Pulpstar said:
Are the Tiggers going to run 500 (I expect they won't bother for instance in my constituency of Bassetlaw) odd candidates though ?HYUFD said:
Though Tigger was on 14% a few weeks agoPulpstar said:
18% looks massively high for Green-Tigger-UKIP-other though.HYUFD said:
Those figures see May's Tories have almost exactly the same lead over Labour Blair's New Labour had over the Tories in 2001 when Blair won his second landslide. Corbyn is now in Hague territory if correctTissue_Price said:
Oh hmm, those figures are without a fully fledged Tigger party. Looks like Labour are in the shit then.
Thanks for the breakdown @Harris_Tweed0 -
They didn't ask about TIG by name this time.HYUFD said:
Though Tigger was on 14% a few weeks agoPulpstar said:
18% looks massively high for Green-Tigger-UKIP-other though.HYUFD said:
Those figures see May's Tories have almost exactly the same lead over Labour Blair's New Labour had over the Tories in 2001 when Blair won his second landslide. Corbyn is now in Hague territory if correctTissue_Price said:0 -
Should all fascists be treated with respect despite the actions of other fascists?Chris said:What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
Is opposing fascists or being concerned about fascists wrong because the actions of all fascists aren't the same?0 -
-
Mr. Stereotomy, and it's been largely out of the news. Could use some more defections.0
-
I hear a group that does research into europe is looking into how to best keep the Tory vote unified.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's too early to say that Labour are in trouble. The Conservative support looks to me to be very fragile; at the moment, it includes those happy with No Deal and those utterly horrified by the prospect of No Deal. It's hard to see how the party can navigate through the next few weeks without a rupture between those two parts of the coalition (and that's even without factoring in the likelihood that those currently supporting No Deal will in practice be horrified by the reality).Pulpstar said:
Are the Tiggers going to run 500 (I expect they won't bother for instance in my constituency of Bassetlaw) odd candidates though ?HYUFD said:
Though Tigger was on 14% a few weeks agoPulpstar said:
18% looks massively high for Green-Tigger-UKIP-other though.HYUFD said:
Those figures see May's Tories have almost exactly the same lead over Labour Blair's New Labour had over the Tories in 2001 when Blair won his second landslide. Corbyn is now in Hague territory if correctTissue_Price said:
Oh hmm, those figures are without a fully fledged Tigger party. Looks like Labour are in the shit then.
Thanks for the breakdown @Harris_Tweed0 -
People make generalized assumptions all the time. It's a natural cognitive function that is generally useful and efficient - but can sometimes lead us astray.kinabalu said:There are 2 billion souls scattered throughout this world who are Muslim. Anybody who makes generalized assumptions about them as individuals is up a gum tree.
I don't think that pointing out where it is happening is to excuse the result where that is erroneous, but to understand why it happens. Otherwise you are reduced to denouncing people for being bad, which is not very constructive.0 -
Plus, as OGH keeps reminding us, leadership ratings are very important. Corbyn wont be facing May unless the GE is this year.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's too early to say that Labour are in trouble. The Conservative support looks to me to be very fragile; at the moment, it includes those happy with No Deal and those utterly horrified by the prospect of No Deal. It's hard to see how the party can navigate through the next few weeks without a rupture between those two parts of the coalition (and that's even without factoring in the likelihood that those currently supporting No Deal will in practice be horrified by the reality).Pulpstar said:
Are the Tiggers going to run 500 (I expect they won't bother for instance in my constituency of Bassetlaw) odd candidates though ?HYUFD said:
Though Tigger was on 14% a few weeks agoPulpstar said:
18% looks massively high for Green-Tigger-UKIP-other though.HYUFD said:
Those figures see May's Tories have almost exactly the same lead over Labour Blair's New Labour had over the Tories in 2001 when Blair won his second landslide. Corbyn is now in Hague territory if correctTissue_Price said:
Oh hmm, those figures are without a fully fledged Tigger party. Looks like Labour are in the shit then.
Thanks for the breakdown @Harris_Tweed
How will voters rate Boris?
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/11039347765394063380 -
May says if you don't pass my deal there will be no Brexit.0
-
Yes I realise this now, this makes the issue worse for Labour.Stereotomy said:
They didn't ask about TIG by name this time.HYUFD said:
Though Tigger was on 14% a few weeks agoPulpstar said:
18% looks massively high for Green-Tigger-UKIP-other though.HYUFD said:
Those figures see May's Tories have almost exactly the same lead over Labour Blair's New Labour had over the Tories in 2001 when Blair won his second landslide. Corbyn is now in Hague territory if correctTissue_Price said:0 -
People are not making arguments to justify racial or religious prejudice.Chris said:
What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.TOPPING said:
Fantastic - you uphold the principle of treating people with respect moments after calling posters on here stupid and unable to think clearly.Chris said:
Is treating people with respect now a concept to be derided?TOPPING said:
LOL x 2Chris said:
I have no thought that I'm going to "win an argument" here against anti-Muslim prejudice. There's far too much of it about, and obviously far too many people here feel comfortable with it to think clearly about what they're saying. But there's a certain satisfaction in pointing out the sheer bone-headed stupidity of arguments like the one above.Ishmael_Z said:
1. You do not win arguments by calling your opponent stupid.Chris said:
If there were, would that justify antisemitism?Sean_F said:
Are there British Jews who blow up their fellow citizens, and claim to be acting in the name of their religion?Chris said:Pulpstar said:
Sure, but you also need to transpose to a world where we've had multiple Jewish terrorist attacks in the last 20 or so years.
The answer from today's apologists for anti-Muslim prejudice today is a resounding "Yes".
Your argument is so stupid that it makes Theresa May look like Einstein.
We're all tired and emotional and not thinking straight. Do you think we're all soft-headed lasses or something, Mr Treat Everyone With Respect?
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.0 -
Many thanks. The more bone-headedly stupid arguments people post here in favour of prejudice against Muslims, the better.Philip_Thompson said:
Should all fascists be treated with respect despite the actions of other fascists?Chris said:What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
Is opposing fascists or being concerned about fascists wrong because the actions of all fascists aren't the same?0 -
Those would be good for a short-term boost, but in the longer term, winning news coverage without any apparent guiding principles or the ability to agree on radical, eye-catching policies is going to be an ongoing struggle for them.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Stereotomy, and it's been largely out of the news. Could use some more defections.
0 -
The heavy down-weighting of Remain voters in their sample has been a feature of their polls for a long time.AlastairMeeks said:
It's worth noting that Remainers are heavily downweighted in that poll to get them to 48% of the sample. If in fact what is happening is false recall, Labour may be doing substantially better, given their much better showing with Remainers.Tissue_Price said:0 -
In these cases (reasonably clear facts but the law requires an interpretation of motive or negligence), I'd be amazed if the defendant's identity and status doesn't play a bigger role in a jury's collective mind than a strict legalistic consideration.Richard_Nabavi said:
Actually it was probably the correct decision. The prosecution had to prove their case of criminal negligence beyond reasonable doubt. That's a very high bar, and rightly so.nico67 said:Utterly disgraceful decision. What were the jury thinking . If hadn’t done that illegal manoeuvre then he would have had time to pull out and not crash .
The jury should hang their heads in shame .
Or to put it another way, if I was a former RAF/BA pilot on a manslaughter charge for crashing my plane, I'd definitely try a not guilty plea.0 -
May: "We may never leave at all"0
-
The Remain vote was "downweighted" to 48% in the referendum - by 17+ million turning out to vote leave.williamglenn said:
The heavy down-weighting of Remain voters in their sample has been a feature of their polls for a long time.AlastairMeeks said:
It's worth noting that Remainers are heavily downweighted in that poll to get them to 48% of the sample. If in fact what is happening is false recall, Labour may be doing substantially better, given their much better showing with Remainers.Tissue_Price said:
0 -
Umunna said yesterday TIG aim to stand in every constituencyPulpstar said:
Are the Tiggers going to run 500 (I expect they won't bother for instance in my constituency of Bassetlaw) odd candidates though ?HYUFD said:
Though Tigger was on 14% a few weeks agoPulpstar said:
18% looks massively high for Green-Tigger-UKIP-other though.HYUFD said:
Those figures see May's Tories have almost exactly the same lead over Labour Blair's New Labour had over the Tories in 2001 when Blair won his second landslide. Corbyn is now in Hague territory if correctTissue_Price said:
Oh hmm, those figures are without a fully fledged Tigger party. Looks like Labour are in the shit then.
Thanks for the breakdown @Harris_Tweed0 -
I feel we're at risk of straying into "unskewing" territory herewilliamglenn said:
The heavy down-weighting of Remain voters in their sample has been a feature of their polls for a long time.AlastairMeeks said:
It's worth noting that Remainers are heavily downweighted in that poll to get them to 48% of the sample. If in fact what is happening is false recall, Labour may be doing substantially better, given their much better showing with Remainers.Tissue_Price said:0 -
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6784495/Sickening-cartoons-jibes-lay-bare-Labours-institutional-anti-Semitism.html
Trevor Phillips
"That is because for many in Labour’s far-Left there are only two battles worth fighting. One is against the class enemy represented by the Tories; the other, internationally, is the war against the imperialist Americans and their allies, whose principal running dog is, of course, Israel."
"And unfortunately, by their behaviour, the Labour leadership seems to have bought this barrel-load of nonsense completely. The lunatics have taken over the asylum and – whatever they think they are doing – are behaving like anti-Semites.
I am sure any defence of the EHRC’s action in starting an investigation will become part of a fresh conspiracy theory. It happens that both the chair and chief executive of the EHRC are Jewish. The Twitter-sphere is already in overdrive and last night Labour’s National Executive Committee was calling for the EHRC to be abolished!"
They called for the EHRC to be abolished?
0 -
May outlining all the good things that will happen when her deal is passed.
Only one tiny problem...0 -
One of the NEC members called for it yesterday, not the NEC as a whole. Still unacceptable, though.Floater said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6784495/Sickening-cartoons-jibes-lay-bare-Labours-institutional-anti-Semitism.html
Trevor Phillips
"That is because for many in Labour’s far-Left there are only two battles worth fighting. One is against the class enemy represented by the Tories; the other, internationally, is the war against the imperialist Americans and their allies, whose principal running dog is, of course, Israel."
"And unfortunately, by their behaviour, the Labour leadership seems to have bought this barrel-load of nonsense completely. The lunatics have taken over the asylum and – whatever they think they are doing – are behaving like anti-Semites.
I am sure any defence of the EHRC’s action in starting an investigation will become part of a fresh conspiracy theory. It happens that both the chair and chief executive of the EHRC are Jewish. The Twitter-sphere is already in overdrive and last night Labour’s National Executive Committee was calling for the EHRC to be abolished!"
They called for the EHRC to be abolished?0 -
The specific argument we're discussing is your comment "Are there British Jews who blow up their fellow citizens, and claim to be acting in the name of their religion?"Sean_F said:
People are not making arguments to justify racial or religious prejudice.Chris said:
What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.TOPPING said:
Fantastic - you uphold the principle of treating people with respect moments after calling posters on here stupid and unable to think clearly.Chris said:
Is treating people with respect now a concept to be derided?TOPPING said:
LOL x 2Chris said:
I have no thought that I'm going to "win an argument" here against anti-Muslim prejudice. There's far too much of it about, and obviously far too many people here feel comfortable with it to think clearly about what they're saying. But there's a certain satisfaction in pointing out the sheer bone-headed stupidity of arguments like the one above.Ishmael_Z said:
1. You do not win arguments by calling your opponent stupid.Chris said:
If there were, would that justify antisemitism?Sean_F said:
Are there British Jews who blow up their fellow citizens, and claim to be acting in the name of their religion?Chris said:Pulpstar said:
Sure, but you also need to transpose to a world where we've had multiple Jewish terrorist attacks in the last 20 or so years.
The answer from today's apologists for anti-Muslim prejudice today is a resounding "Yes".
Your argument is so stupid that it makes Theresa May look like Einstein.
We're all tired and emotional and not thinking straight. Do you think we're all soft-headed lasses or something, Mr Treat Everyone With Respect?
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
That certainly seemed to imply that anti-Muslim prejudice was somehow more acceptable that antisemitism.
But if you accept that's not the case I'm only too pleased to hear it.0 -
There was a plebiscite in Crimea in 1991, held under the rules recognised in international law and it voted both to be part of Ukraine and to be independent of Russia. The crazy thing about the invasion of Crimea is that with a bit of patience Putin probably could have helped build an indy movement and win Crimea legitimately - now he has a big headache trying to feed and maintain a disgruntled population who are not being showered with the goodies they were promised - quelle surprisePhilip_Thompson said:
Maybe if the people of Crimea had elected a party backing a plebiscite, you know how like the SNP won elections in Scotland to trigger theirs.YBarddCwsc said:
Under what circumstance do you envisage the Government of the Ukraine would have given their assent for a plebiscite in the Crimea?Philip_Thompson said:YBarddCwsc said:
The legality of the transfer of the Crimea from Russia to the Ukraine in 1954 is highly debatable.williamglenn said:
You are reading something into my comments that I haven't said. Your starting position is that Ukraine "as presently conceived by the West is like Yugoslavia" and that Russia somehow has a right to claim territories with majority ethnic Russian populations. It is this argument I am disputing.YBarddCwsc said:
It is unbelievable that all the Remainers (Meeks, WilliamGlenn, Anazina) can't accept a very simple statement of the bleeding obvious.Sean_F said:
Re Crimea the issue is one of self-determination. There's not much doubt that most of the inhabitants view themselves as Russian and want to be part of Russia._Anazina_ said:
Canada adjoins the United States. Is it therefore naturally part of the United States?YBarddCwsc said:
Excellent analogy ... apart from, I guess, Russia adjoins the Crimea, and Australia is the other end of the world from Britain.williamglenn said:
When you start talking about ethnicity in respect of Russia and Ukraine it shows that you've wholly bought into the way the Kremlin wants you to see it.
.
According to wiki, Henry Kissinger stated it was possible Khruschev gave Crimea to Ukraine because he was drunk at the time.
My guess is that is not a basis for a long-lived solution.
The fact the military invaded first and then the public under military occupation "voted" makes that void though.
Anything after a military occupation simply doesn't count.0 -
One member did. Not sure about the NEC as whole.Floater said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6784495/Sickening-cartoons-jibes-lay-bare-Labours-institutional-anti-Semitism.html
Trevor Phillips
"That is because for many in Labour’s far-Left there are only two battles worth fighting. One is against the class enemy represented by the Tories; the other, internationally, is the war against the imperialist Americans and their allies, whose principal running dog is, of course, Israel."
"And unfortunately, by their behaviour, the Labour leadership seems to have bought this barrel-load of nonsense completely. The lunatics have taken over the asylum and – whatever they think they are doing – are behaving like anti-Semites.
I am sure any defence of the EHRC’s action in starting an investigation will become part of a fresh conspiracy theory. It happens that both the chair and chief executive of the EHRC are Jewish. The Twitter-sphere is already in overdrive and last night Labour’s National Executive Committee was calling for the EHRC to be abolished!"
They called for the EHRC to be abolished?
https://twitter.com/NickCohen4/status/11037020254250434560 -
I like to imagine that she starts the sentence not having yet decided whether she's going to threaten no deal or no brexit this time, and only decides at the last moment. Maybe she glances at her watch and picks based on whether the second hand is on an odd or even number.TGOHF said:May says if you don't pass my deal there will be no Brexit.
0 -
That's why I was asking as that would surely have been big newsrottenborough said:
One member did. Not sure about the NEC as whole.Floater said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6784495/Sickening-cartoons-jibes-lay-bare-Labours-institutional-anti-Semitism.html
Trevor Phillips
"That is because for many in Labour’s far-Left there are only two battles worth fighting. One is against the class enemy represented by the Tories; the other, internationally, is the war against the imperialist Americans and their allies, whose principal running dog is, of course, Israel."
"And unfortunately, by their behaviour, the Labour leadership seems to have bought this barrel-load of nonsense completely. The lunatics have taken over the asylum and – whatever they think they are doing – are behaving like anti-Semites.
I am sure any defence of the EHRC’s action in starting an investigation will become part of a fresh conspiracy theory. It happens that both the chair and chief executive of the EHRC are Jewish. The Twitter-sphere is already in overdrive and last night Labour’s National Executive Committee was calling for the EHRC to be abolished!"
They called for the EHRC to be abolished?
Who was this numpty in any case?0 -
Chris if I may say you are making the classic mistake of fixing on your conclusion first and then shaping the experiment to justify that conclusion.Chris said:What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
Back in the mists of time in this thread it was observed that if you have a group of people (brown eyed, fair haired, Jews, Muslims - it works with each of these groups) who are *in the name of that group* committing terrorist acts then it is not surprising that some people will take against every member of that group.
Is it justified? No of course not because there are plenty of fair-haired people who wouldn't dream of committing terrorist acts and wholly disassociate themselves from the terrorists. But the fact remains that those terrorists are committing their terrorists acts globally in the name of fair-haired people. So discrimination against fair-haired people is not justified. Nor, however, is it surprising.0 -
No idea, but probably a Momentum activist.Floater said:
That's why I was asking as that would surely have been big newsrottenborough said:
One member did. Not sure about the NEC as whole.Floater said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6784495/Sickening-cartoons-jibes-lay-bare-Labours-institutional-anti-Semitism.html
Trevor Phillips
"That is because for many in Labour’s far-Left there are only two battles worth fighting. One is against the class enemy represented by the Tories; the other, internationally, is the war against the imperialist Americans and their allies, whose principal running dog is, of course, Israel."
"And unfortunately, by their behaviour, the Labour leadership seems to have bought this barrel-load of nonsense completely. The lunatics have taken over the asylum and – whatever they think they are doing – are behaving like anti-Semites.
I am sure any defence of the EHRC’s action in starting an investigation will become part of a fresh conspiracy theory. It happens that both the chair and chief executive of the EHRC are Jewish. The Twitter-sphere is already in overdrive and last night Labour’s National Executive Committee was calling for the EHRC to be abolished!"
They called for the EHRC to be abolished?
Who was this numpty in any case?
https://twitter.com/hudaelmi_/status/11036901492113735680 -
Denouncing people for being bad, when they are bad, and otherwise refraining from making that judgment is not something you can be reduced to - it is something you ought to aspire to.OblitusSumMe said:People make generalized assumptions all the time. It's a natural cognitive function that is generally useful and efficient - but can sometimes lead us astray.
I don't think that pointing out where it is happening is to excuse the result where that is erroneous, but to understand why it happens. Otherwise you are reduced to denouncing people for being bad, which is not very constructive.0 -
Could you explain why?TOPPING said:
You are trying to be droll but the answer is yes.Stereotomy said:
Okay, next time I do something bad I'll say it was in the name of all brown-eyed people. Presumably any ensuing discrimination against brown-eyed people would be unfair, but not baseless.TOPPING said:
It would make it understandable that certain people would look at Jews and have concerns that they were in some way condoning it, yes. Is that anti-semitic? No because anti-semitism is a baseless hatred of Jews. If the Jews were going around bombing the Circle Line in the name of Jews, then any discrimination against Jews wouldn't be baseless.Chris said:
If there were, would that justify antisemitism?Sean_F said:
Are there British Jews who blow up their fellow citizens, and claim to be acting in the name of their religion?Chris said:
The point is that just because there are terrorist attacks by people who belong to particular groups - be they Jewish, Roman Catholic, Islamic or whatever - that in no way justifies prejudice against those groups.Pulpstar said:
Sure, but you also need to transpose to a world where we've had multiple Jewish terrorist attacks in the last 20 or so years.Chris said:
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.Richard_Nabavi said:An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the questsly addressed and challenged.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
Are people unaware that Jewish groups used to use terrorist tactics? Did that justify antisemitism? Of course not.
Can people really be ignorant that there were periods in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when there was popular agitation in this country against Jews because the areas where Jewish migrants had settled seemed alien and "other"? Was antisemitism understandable or excusable then?
The answer from today's apologists for anti-Muslim prejudice today is a resounding "Yes".
Your argument is so stupid that it makes Theresa May look like Einstein.
It would of course be grossly unfair on all those law-abiding uninvolved in terrorism Jews.0 -
-
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1104002486367596546
To be fair, he has been very busy with another issue.0 -
I didn't make an argument I asked you a question. Two questions actually. You failed to answer them, so I will repeat them.Chris said:
Many thanks. The more bone-headedly stupid arguments people post here in favour of prejudice against Muslims, the better.Philip_Thompson said:
Should all fascists be treated with respect despite the actions of other fascists?Chris said:What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
Is opposing fascists or being concerned about fascists wrong because the actions of all fascists aren't the same?
Should all fascists be treated with respect despite the actions of other fascists?
Is opposing fascists or being concerned about fascists wrong because the actions of all fascists aren't the same?0 -
May is asked how much responsibility she takes for Brexit chaos. Responds by saying Parliament needs to vote for the deal.0
-
The proposed F1 bonus point rule for fastest lap is actually interesting:
“One point will be awarded to the driver who achieved the fastest lap of the race and to the constructor whose car they were driving, providing that the lap time was achieved without incurring a penalty and the driver was in the top 10 positions of the final race classification,”
The top 10 finish proviso eliminates artificial banzai laps by those out of contention, and it introduces a nice element of strategic calculation between closely matched drivers in the top 10 (and is not worth compromisng a podium place for).0 -
Well, at least she can say to ERG I told you so, when Remain wins the forthcoming referendum.Scott_P said:0 -
Gah! See my answer to @Chris.Stereotomy said:
Could you explain why?TOPPING said:
You are trying to be droll but the answer is yes.Stereotomy said:
Okay, next time I do something bad I'll say it was in the name of all brown-eyed people. Presumably any ensuing discrimination against brown-eyed people would be unfair, but not baseless.TOPPING said:
It would make it understandable that certain people would look at Jews and have concerns that they were in some way condoning it, yes. Is that anti-semitic? No because anti-semitism is a baseless hatred of Jews. If the Jews were going around bombing the Circle Line in the name of Jews, then any discrimination against Jews wouldn't be baseless.Chris said:
If there were, would that justify antisemitism?Sean_F said:
Are there British Jews who blow up their fellow citizens, and claim to be acting in the name of their religion?Chris said:
The point is that just because there are terrorist attacks by people who belong to particular groups - be they Jewish, Roman Catholic, Islamic or whatever - that in no way justifies prejudice against those groups.Pulpstar said:
Sure, but you also need to transpose to a world where we've had multiple Jewish terrorist attacks in the last 20 or so years.Chris said:
I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.Richard_Nabavi said:An excellent piece by Ms Cyclefree. The Conservative Party should ask her to provide independent advice on how to ensure that this issue is properly dealt with.
On the questsly addressed and challenged.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
Are people unaware that Jewish groups used to use terrorist tactics? Did that justify antisemitism? Of course not.
Can people really be ignorant that there were periods in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when there was popular agitation in this country against Jews because the areas where Jewish migrants had settled seemed alien and "other"? Was antisemitism understandable or excusable then?
The answer from today's apologists for anti-Muslim prejudice today is a resounding "Yes".
Your argument is so stupid that it makes Theresa May look like Einstein.
It would of course be grossly unfair on all those law-abiding uninvolved in terrorism Jews.0 -
The key difference is that being fair-haired isn't a belief system either. People are committing violence inspired by their beliefs, in the name of their beliefs, not in the name of a trait they were born with. Beliefs and traits are not the same thing.TOPPING said:
Chris if I may say you are making the classic mistake of fixing on your conclusion first and then shaping the experiment to justify that conclusion.Chris said:What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
Back in the mists of time in this thread it was observed that if you have a group of people (brown eyed, fair haired, Jews, Muslims - it works with each of these groups) who are *in the name of that group* committing terrorist acts then it is not surprising that some people will take against every member of that group.
Is it justified? No of course not because there are plenty of fair-haired people who wouldn't dream of committing terrorist acts and wholly disassociate themselves from the terrorists. But the fact remains that those terrorists are committing their terrorists acts globally in the name of fair-haired people. So discrimination against fair-haired people is not justified. Nor, however, is it surprising.0 -
Pretty sure we wont see this kind of Q&A with journos, when/if Corbyn is PM.0
-
You do have to admit though that he was pretty accurate in many cases.TOPPING said:
Fantastic - you uphold the principle of treating people with respect moments after calling posters on here stupid and unable to think clearly.Chris said:
Is treating people with respect now a concept to be derided?TOPPING said:
LOL x 2Chris said:
I have no thought that I'm going to "win an argument" here against anti-Muslim prejudice. There's far too much of it about, and obviously far too many people here feel comfortable with it to think clearly about what they're saying. But there's a certain satisfaction in pointing out the sheer bone-headed stupidity of arguments like the one above.Ishmael_Z said:
1. You do not win arguments by calling your opponent stupid.Chris said:
If there were, would that justify antisemitism?Sean_F said:
Are there British Jews who blow up their fellow citizens, and claim to be acting in the name of their religion?Chris said:
The point is that just because there are terrorist attacks by people who belong to particular groups - be they Jewish, Roman Catholic, Islamic or whatever - that in no way justifies prejudice against those groups.Pulpstar said:
Sure, but you also need to transpose to a world where we've had multiple Jewish terrorist attacks in the last 20 or so years.Chris said:I think your comments also illustrate how anti-Muslim prejudice is now widely viewed as acceptable.
A good test is always to substitute the word "Jew" for the word "Muslim". Would you have talked about "soft" antisemitism being unsurprising, considering how unsettlingly "other" Jewish areas have become?
Are people unaware that Jewish groups used to use terrorist tactics? Did that justify antisemitism? Of course not.
Can people really be ignorant that there were periods in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when there was popular agitation in this country against Jews because the areas where Jewish migrants had settled seemed alien and "other"? Was antisemitism understandable or excusable then?
The answer from today's apologists for anti-Muslim prejudice today is a resounding "Yes".
Your argument is so stupid that it makes Theresa May look like Einstein.
We're all tired and emotional and not thinking straight. Do you think we're all soft-headed lasses or something, Mr Treat Everyone With Respect?0 -
-
I'm not doubting the poll any more than any other (all of them have problems of one kind or another and no single poll should be taken very seriously). I'm certainly not going to be unskewing it.Stereotomy said:
I feel we're at risk of straying into "unskewing" territory herewilliamglenn said:
The heavy down-weighting of Remain voters in their sample has been a feature of their polls for a long time.AlastairMeeks said:
It's worth noting that Remainers are heavily downweighted in that poll to get them to 48% of the sample. If in fact what is happening is false recall, Labour may be doing substantially better, given their much better showing with Remainers.Tissue_Price said:
I note merely that it is possibly overstating the Conservative lead for a particular reason.0 -
My family was kicked out of Ireland after 800 years.Pulpstar said:
In the long run invasions can be successful, particularly if the population adopts the identity of the invader either through immigration or a shift in identity.Floater said:You appear to be excusing an invasion?
It's why nations tend to prefer to go for historical hinterlands (At least first) in their invasions, and why invading somewhere with no cultural or historical affiliation to any hinterland is less likely to succeed unless you can convince the natives of a change of identity or get mass immigration in...
If the population is more satisfied with the invader than the original host nation, should the original invader then be expelled ?
Also, how far back do you go
The Irish government has been spent the last couple of years actively marketing to us to try and persuade us to return...
0 -
Optics, you don't get much more leavery than a workshop in Grimsby.rottenborough said:0 -
The BBC director general, Tony Hall, has mocked the size of Netflix’s viewing figures, claiming only seven million Britons watched The Crown despite the enormous media buzz around the big-budget show.
The BBC boss said high-profile dramas such as Luther and Bodyguard reached larger audiences with a smaller budget on the public broadcaster than expensive Netflix shows.
https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2019/mar/07/bbc-boss-mocks-netflixs-the-crown-viewing-figures
They just don’t get it...and bodyguard is a great example...cos guess who has the rights to show it worldwide...hint it ain’t the bbc.
0 -
ahh - it becomes clearerrottenborough said:
No idea, but probably a Momentum activist.Floater said:
That's why I was asking as that would surely have been big newsrottenborough said:
One member did. Not sure about the NEC as whole.Floater said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6784495/Sickening-cartoons-jibes-lay-bare-Labours-institutional-anti-Semitism.html
Trevor Phillips
"That is because for many in Labour’s far-Left there are only two battles worth fighting. One is against the class enemy represented by the Tories; the other, internationally, is the war against the imperialist Americans and their allies, whose principal running dog is, of course, Israel."
"And unfortunately, by their behaviour, the Labour leadership seems to have bought this barrel-load of nonsense completely. The lunatics have taken over the asylum and – whatever they think they are doing – are behaving like anti-Semites.
I am sure any defence of the EHRC’s action in starting an investigation will become part of a fresh conspiracy theory. It happens that both the chair and chief executive of the EHRC are Jewish. The Twitter-sphere is already in overdrive and last night Labour’s National Executive Committee was calling for the EHRC to be abolished!"
They called for the EHRC to be abolished?
Who was this numpty in any case?
https://twitter.com/hudaelmi_/status/1103690149211373568
https://www.independent.co.uk/author/huda-elmi
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/momentum/pages/92/attachments/original/1521668008/Huda_Elmi_CLP_(1)_(1).pdf?1521668008
Another one who describes themselves as a tireless anti racism campaigner
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB792GB792&lei=TGeCXMm9Hv6d1fAPsqWuiAI&q=huda elmi israel&ved=2ahUKEwjviYbmzPLgAhUDx4UKHRp8BuwQsKwBKAB6BAgAEAE
0 -
The desirable endpoint is not to feel righteous about identifying other people as bad, but to reduce the incidence of bad things occurring.kinabalu said:
Denouncing people for being bad, when they are bad, and otherwise refraining from making that judgment is not something you can be reduced to - it is something you ought to aspire to.OblitusSumMe said:People make generalized assumptions all the time. It's a natural cognitive function that is generally useful and efficient - but can sometimes lead us astray.
I don't think that pointing out where it is happening is to excuse the result where that is erroneous, but to understand why it happens. Otherwise you are reduced to denouncing people for being bad, which is not very constructive.
I think that understanding why a person did a bad thing is not likely to be productive than denouncing that person as bad for doing that bad thing. It's much easier to convince someone to try to change if you don't make them so defensive in the first place.0
