yes, but you could argue that they were not chosen as slaves because they were a different race, simply that they were from a different "tribe", or maybe spoke a different language, or were from a lesser social order. Race as we understand it now is almost certainly a very modern concept.
Isn't it just a difference of the size of the groups which are defined as 'us' vs 'them'?
Absolutely. "Us and them" may involve the base instinct of xenophobia (I would say Brexit as based on this), but it isn't necessarily racist, though with some people it may be. Historical examples are more tribal than racist. Some have argued that racism and subsequently eugenics are largely post-Darwin concepts, and led to the movement known as Social Darwinism
As for why - these things are only an issue due to a No Deal exit, if we leave with a Deal we can still export food to the EU - without a deal we can't...
And remember Boris promised during the referendum that we wouldn't leaving without a deal - BMW, Mercedes and VW would make sure of that..
or food safety.
Note - my post isn't about subsidies remaining - it's about the sudden destruction of the export market resulting in an additional significant loss of sales...
1 and 2 are given - this has nothing to do with either of them - a No Deal Brexit means most farmers have no market to sell their product to...
We import 40% of the food we eat. Imports are far larger than exports by a long way. The only significant food that we export more than we import is Lamb.
We lose the exports to EU27 because of the CET being applicable. If we put exactly the same tariffs up to the EU27 then according to your argument the EU will have no UK market to sell too. Therefore there is a significant lack of supply to the UK (with the exception of Lamb). But we must have the food so the food will come the prices will rise and the main beneficiary if those price rise will be UK farmers. Which is why the NFU does not want the Govt to reduce tariffs to zero, because they want their members to have these price rises.
Did I mention tariffs? It's red tape that will kill us - sorry that meat can't leave the ferry it's not certified....
in the case of no deal brexit it will not even be put on a ferry either here or on the UK. The agreement that allows the food to be traded is in the EU agreements. So if we leave with no deal we can not sell certain foods to them and they can not sell certain foods to use. Which is why in the case of no deal a mini deal on food would be done.
Forgive me if I am being a bit thick, but, if your flock is slaughtered, and you receive compensation, aren't you still out of a job? Because you then become a sheep less sheep farmer?
Plenty of options if you have the land.
In the fells of Cumbria for example? Other than rewilding, which wouldn't be a bad option in my view, not immediately obvious what the demand would be.
Forestry! Good for water management, biodiversity and the best form of carbon capture.
Hill grazing land is not really suited to farming other than sheep. I suspect may not go down well in Brecon.
I mean, most ancient states weren't racist in the sense we discuss today because their ideas of race were completely different. In ancient times distinction wasn't about skin colour, or even country of origin, as much as barbarian or civilised. Even pre Empire you had notions of Christendom and such that kind of transcended race as such, and the obsession with skin colour and other "biological" metrics of race were an invention of the Empire and scientific racism. Indeed, the first "inferior race" English scientists discussed were the Irish, who have only recently been welcomed into whiteness. They were known as white n-words for that reason.
My main contention is that saying "well if all these things are racist, racism doesn't mean anything" isn't true. It just means that when people hear the word racist they go "well that is bad, anything that is good can't be racist, and I think x is fine, so it isn't racist". It's like people accepting that Trump says racist things, but the idea he is personally racist is a bridge too far. Racism isn't something you are, it is evidenced by actions and outcomes.
On Trump, although this applies to many others too, it is clear that by 'vice signalling' (i.e that he has racist views) he seeks career advantage - in his case the career being US presidential politics, whereas, for example, with some of our homegrown varieties such as Tommy Robinson or Katie Hopkins it is ego and money.
It is often difficult, and sometimes impossible, with such people to ascertain how racist they actually are (in their hearts and minds) as opposed to it being a front that they have chosen because it profits them.
Questions then begged -
Is it worse or better if you are not as racist as you make out you are?
Or does it not matter because (as you say) it is purely about words and behaviour and outcomes?
My view (I think) is that it does not really matter but, if anything, a non-racist pretending to be racist for personal advantage is that little bit worse than the authentic racist. Because of the added dose of a most appalling brand of cynicism.
I think it's worse. What Trump said wasn't in the heat of the moment during a debate or something.
yes, but you could argue that they were not chosen as slaves because they were a different race, simply that they were from a different "tribe", or maybe spoke a different language, or were from a lesser social order. Race as we understand it now is almost certainly a very modern concept.
Isn't it just a difference of the size of the groups which are defined as 'us' vs 'them'?
Kind of. But one tribesman from Gaul could be a Roman, and the other a slave, depending on whether they bought into the Roman state, not because of their racial attributes, not because they were from Gaul rather than the Peninsula.
Interestingly the fall of Rome arguably was caused when some Roman elites refused to continue the practice of integration in attempt to make Rome great again, which heightened tensions with Gaulish and Germanic generals who would otherwise have been granted Roman citizenship, and instead ended up warring with the Roman state.
But also also, there is a reason why we talk about racism today. Because the European colonial powers and their racist policies are barely a lifetime out of memory, and very much affect people today. Things like that spectator article that did the rounds asking if Normans should give reparations to Anglo Saxons miss the point that the impacts of those issues are now gone to the wayside due to time and other factors. We accept the logic when it comes to reparations for Jewish victims of the Holocaust, but when the British Empire extracted the wealth of India to benefit those living in England (for example) the idea of reparations become unthinkable.
Presumably after scanning the window sills of many a provincial boarding house, the Guardian has got hold of a copy of Boris's old novel:
Because the subconscious is so involved in the percolation of fiction, novelists often disclose more than they know or intend. Perhaps only Sigmund Freud could tell us why Johnson named a young woman after whom his alter ego Barlow lusts, “Cameron”, the Eton and Oxford contemporary who became his bitterest Tory rival.
Forgive me if I am being a bit thick, but, if your flock is slaughtered, and you receive compensation, aren't you still out of a job? Because you then become a sheep less sheep farmer?
Plenty of options if you have the land.
In the fells of Cumbria for example? Other than rewilding, which wouldn't be a bad option in my view, not immediately obvious what the demand would be.
Forestry! Good for water management, biodiversity and the best form of carbon capture.
Hill grazing land is not really suited to farming other than sheep. I suspect may not go down well in Brecon.
Sorry, but forestry is not eco-friendly. In many areas it results in huge decline of biodiversity and soil damage as the most efficient forestry involves non-indigenous tree species. Try going into a Forestry Commission woodland and see how much diversity you can see. Low intensity hill farming results in very diverse habitats
yes, but you could argue that they were not chosen as slaves because they were a different race, simply that they were from a different "tribe", or maybe spoke a different language, or were from a lesser social order. Race as we understand it now is almost certainly a very modern concept.
Isn't it just a difference of the size of the groups which are defined as 'us' vs 'them'?
Absolutely. "Us and them" may involve the base instinct of xenophobia (I would say Brexit as based on this), but it isn't necessarily racist, though with some people it may be. Historical examples are more tribal than racist. Some have argued that racism and subsequently eugenics are largely post-Darwin concepts, and led to the movement known as Social Darwinism
I think that's dancing on pinheads, frankly. If you were about to slaughtered by the Mongol hordes, it probably wouldn't have been much consolation that The Origin of Species hadn't been published. Or if you want a clearer example, look at the racial 'superiority' (according to themselves) of historic China or Japan.
in the case of no deal brexit it will not even be put on a ferry either here or on the UK. The agreement that allows the food to be traded is in the EU agreements. So if we leave with no deal we can not sell certain foods to them and they can not sell certain foods to use. Which is why in the case of no deal a mini deal on food would be done.
Given that our No Deal plan seems to be let things in and ignore paper work why would the EU provide us with a deal to allow us to export goods when we are allowing imports to occur regardless.
Yes the No Deal people are that thick and really don't understand Game theory let alone negotiation tactics.
I mean, most ancient states weren't racist in the sense we discuss today because their ideas of race were completely different. In ancient times distinction wasn't about skin colour, or even country of origin, as much as barbarian or civilised. Even pre Empire you had notions of Christendom and such that kind of transcended race as such, and the obsession with skin colour and other "biological" metrics of race were an invention of the Empire and scientific racism. Indeed, the first "inferior race" English scientists discussed were the Irish, who have only recently been welcomed into whiteness. They were known as white n-words for that reason.
My main contention is that saying "well if all these things are racist, racism doesn't mean anything" isn't true. It just means that when people hear the word racist they go "well that is bad, anything that is good can't be racist, and I think x is fine, so it isn't racist". It's like people accepting that Trump says racist things, but the idea he is personally racist is a bridge too far. Racism isn't something you are, it is evidenced by actions and outcomes.
On Trump, although this applies to many others too, it is clear that by 'vice signalling' (i.e that he has racist views) he seeks career advantage - in his case the career being US presidential politics, whereas, for example, with some of our homegrown varieties such as Tommy Robinson or Katie Hopkins it is ego and money.
It is often difficult, and sometimes impossible, with such people to ascertain how racist they actually are (in their hearts and minds) as opposed to it being a front that they have chosen because it profits them.
Questions then begged -
Is it worse or better if you are not as racist as you make out you are?
Or does it not matter because (as you say) it is purely about words and behaviour and outcomes?
My view (I think) is that it does not really matter but, if anything, a non-racist pretending to be racist for personal advantage is that little bit worse than the authentic racist. Because of the added dose of a most appalling brand of cynicism.
Same with the Labour Party. Their institutional anti-semitism and shoot the messenger strategy must at some point cut through.
And I think they are quite happy that it does because in their calculus they will get more votes being perceived to be anti-semitic than they will if they explicitly reject or address it.
Forgive me if I am being a bit thick, but, if your flock is slaughtered, and you receive compensation, aren't you still out of a job? Because you then become a sheep less sheep farmer?
Plenty of options if you have the land.
In the fells of Cumbria for example? Other than rewilding, which wouldn't be a bad option in my view, not immediately obvious what the demand would be.
Forestry! Good for water management, biodiversity and the best form of carbon capture.
Hill grazing land is not really suited to farming other than sheep. I suspect may not go down well in Brecon.
Just to mention, at least to non-veggies, that British lamb is a fabulously good product (Cumbrian best of all), that it is produced on a lot of otherwise fairly marginal land, and that sheep are famously resistant to intensive rearing of the sort that afflicts some other meat production. Theirs is not a bad life all told. If we ended up consuming more of this wonderful home produced product it would be a good thing. Let's hope for at least a mini deal over lamb, which other countries appreciate more than we do ourselves.
in the case of no deal brexit it will not even be put on a ferry either here or on the UK. The agreement that allows the food to be traded is in the EU agreements. So if we leave with no deal we can not sell certain foods to them and they can not sell certain foods to use. Which is why in the case of no deal a mini deal on food would be done.
Given that our No Deal plan seems to be let things in and ignore paper work why would the EU provide us with a deal to allow us to export goods when we are allowing imports to occur regardless.
Yes the No Deal people are that thick and really don't understand Game theory let alone negotiation tactics.
Our no deal plan is not to ignore regulations. The press is full of food shortage warnings, which can only occur if we do not ignore current regulations.
yes, but you could argue that they were not chosen as slaves because they were a different race, simply that they were from a different "tribe", or maybe spoke a different language, or were from a lesser social order. Race as we understand it now is almost certainly a very modern concept.
Isn't it just a difference of the size of the groups which are defined as 'us' vs 'them'?
Kind of. But one tribesman from Gaul could be a Roman, and the other a slave, depending on whether they bought into the Roman state, not because of their racial attributes, not because they were from Gaul rather than the Peninsula.
Interestingly the fall of Rome arguably was caused when some Roman elites refused to continue the practice of integration in attempt to make Rome great again, which heightened tensions with Gaulish and Germanic generals who would otherwise have been granted Roman citizenship, and instead ended up warring with the Roman state.
But also also, there is a reason why we talk about racism today. Because the European colonial powers and their racist policies are barely a lifetime out of memory, and very much affect people today. Things like that spectator article that did the rounds asking if Normans should give reparations to Anglo Saxons miss the point that the impacts of those issues are now gone to the wayside due to time and other factors. We accept the logic when it comes to reparations for Jewish victims of the Holocaust, but when the British Empire extracted the wealth of India to benefit those living in England (for example) the idea of reparations become unthinkable.
Hmm, with you until the last sentence, but really that is revisionism. The idea that India was some kind of non-racist social democratic paradise, prosperous and with the prosperity fairly distributed and minorities protected, until the hated British came and stole the wealth, is completely out with the fairies.
As for why - these things are only an issue due to a No Deal exit, if we leave with a Deal we can still export food to the EU - without a deal we can't...
And remember Boris promised during the referendum that we wouldn't leaving without a deal - BMW, Mercedes and VW would make sure of that..
or food safety.
Note - my post isn't about subsidies remaining - it's about the sudden destruction of the export market resulting in an additional significant loss of sales...
1 and 2 are given - this has nothing to do with either of them - a No Deal Brexit means most farmers have no market to sell their product to...
We import 40% of the food we eat. Imports are far larger than exports by a long way. The only significant food that we export more than we import is Lamb.
We lose the exports to EU27 because of the CET being applicable. If we put exactly the same tariffs up to the EU27 then according to your argument the EU will have no UK market to sell too. Therefore there is a significant lack of supply to the UK (with the exception of Lamb). But we must have the food so the food will come the prices will rise and the main beneficiary if those price rise will be UK farmers. Which is why the NFU does not want the Govt to reduce tariffs to zero, because they want their members to have these price rises.
Did I mention tariffs? It's red tape that will kill us - sorry that meat can't leave the ferry it's not certified....
in the case of no deal brexit it will not even be put on a ferry either here or on the UK. The agreement that allows the food to be traded is in the EU agreements. So if we leave with no deal we can not sell certain foods to them and they can not sell certain foods to use. Which is why in the case of no deal a mini deal on food would be done.
Excellent! Perhaps you can tell us *when* this mini deal will be done, and with whom. Because Boris, pbuh, is about to send Parliament on its holidays, have a General Election, and there is a limit on what the civil service can do by itself legally. We're kind of running out of time.
Forgive me if I am being a bit thick, but, if your flock is slaughtered, and you receive compensation, aren't you still out of a job? Because you then become a sheep less sheep farmer?
Plenty of options if you have the land.
In the fells of Cumbria for example? Other than rewilding, which wouldn't be a bad option in my view, not immediately obvious what the demand would be.
Forestry! Good for water management, biodiversity and the best form of carbon capture.
Hill grazing land is not really suited to farming other than sheep. I suspect may not go down well in Brecon.
Just to mention, at least to non-veggies, that British lamb is a fabulously good product (Cumbrian best of all), that it is produced on a lot of otherwise fairly marginal land, and that sheep are famously resistant to intensive rearing of the sort that afflicts some other meat production. Theirs is not a bad life all told. If we ended up consuming more of this wonderful home produced product it would be a good thing. Let's hope for at least a mini deal over lamb, which other countries appreciate more than we do ourselves.
Yes, I am partial to lamb, and of meats it is least industrialised, apart from slaughter. Rather high in saturated fat but in modest quantities a good thing.
Same with the Labour Party. Their institutional anti-semitism and shoot the messenger strategy must at some point cut through.
And I think they are quite happy that it does because in their calculus they will get more votes being perceived to be anti-semitic than they will if they explicitly reject or address it.
Hinting that they hate Jews so as to hoover up the Muslim vote?
No, not for me. I do not believe that for a second.
As for why - these things are only an issue due to a No Deal exit, if we leave with a Deal we can still export food to the EU - without a deal we can't...
And remember Boris promised during the referendum that we wouldn't leaving without a deal - BMW, Mercedes and VW would make sure of that..
or food safety.
Note - my post isn't about subsidies remaining - it's about the sudden destruction of the export market resulting in an additional significant loss of sales...
1 and 2 are given - this has nothing to do with either of them - a No Deal Brexit means most farmers have no market to sell their product to...
come the prices will rise and the main beneficiary if those price rise will be UK farmers. Which is why the NFU does not want the Govt to reduce tariffs to zero, because they want their members to have these price rises.
Did I mention tariffs? It's red tape that will kill us - sorry that meat can't leave the ferry it's not certified....
in the case of no deal brexit it will not even be put on a ferry either here or on the UK. The agreement that allows the food to be traded is in the EU agreements. So if we leave with no deal we can not sell certain foods to them and they can not sell certain foods to use. Which is why in the case of no deal a mini deal on food would be done.
Excellent! Perhaps you can tell us *when* this mini deal will be done, and with whom. Because Boris, pbuh, is about to send Parliament on its holidays, have a General Election, and there is a limit on what the civil service can do by itself legally. We're kind of running out of time.
As for why - these things are only an issue due to a No Deal exit, if we leave with a Deal we can still export food to the EU - without a deal we can't...
And remember Boris promised during the referendum that we wouldn't leaving without a deal - BMW, Mercedes and VW would make sure of that..
or food safety.
Note - my post isn't about subsidies remaining - it's about the sudden destruction of the export market resulting in an additional significant loss of sales...
1 and 2 are given - this has nothing to do with either of them - a No Deal Brexit means most farmers have no market to sell their product to...
come the prices will rise and the main beneficiary if those price rise will be UK farmers. Which is why the NFU does not want the Govt to reduce tariffs to zero, because they want their members to have these price rises.
Did I mention tariffs? It's red tape that will kill us - sorry that meat can't leave the ferry it's not certified....
in the case of no deal brexit it will not even be put on a ferry either here or on the UK. The agreement that allows the food to be traded is in the EU agreements. So if we leave with no deal we can not sell certain foods to them and they can not sell certain foods to use. Which is why in the case of no deal a mini deal on food would be done.
Excellent! Perhaps you can tell us *when* this mini deal will be done, and with whom. Because Boris, pbuh, is about to send Parliament on its holidays, have a General Election, and there is a limit on what the civil service can do by itself legally. We're kind of running out of time.
As for why - these things are only an issue due to a No Deal exit, if we leave with a Deal we can still export food to the EU - without a deal we can't...
And remember Boris promised during the referendum that we wouldn't leaving without a deal - BMW, Mercedes and VW would make sure of that..
or food safety.
Note - my post isn't about subsidies remaining - it's about the sudden destruction of the export market resulting in an additional significant loss of sales...
1 and 2 are given - this has nothing to do with either of them - a No Deal Brexit means most farmers have no market to sell their product to...
come the prices will rise and the main beneficiary if those price rise will be UK farmers. Which is why the NFU does not want the Govt to reduce tariffs to zero, because they want their members to have these price rises.
Did I mention tariffs? It's red tape that will kill us - sorry that meat can't leave the ferry it's not certified....
in the case of no deal brexit it will not even be put on a ferry either here or on the UK. The agreement that allows the food to be traded is in the EU agreements. So if we leave with no deal we can not sell certain foods to them and they can not sell certain foods to use. Which is why in the case of no deal a mini deal on food would be done.
Excellent! Perhaps you can tell us *when* this mini deal will be done, and with whom. Because Boris, pbuh, is about to send Parliament on its holidays, have a General Election, and there is a limit on what the civil service can do by itself legally. We're kind of running out of time.
Same with the Labour Party. Their institutional anti-semitism and shoot the messenger strategy must at some point cut through.
And I think they are quite happy that it does because in their calculus they will get more votes being perceived to be anti-semitic than they will if they explicitly reject or address it.
Hinting that they hate Jews so as to hoover up the Muslim vote?
No, not for me. I do not believe that for a second.
That's cool you're not forced to believe it. I don't think there is a particular "Muslim vote". I do think that broadly the Jews are such a tiny constituency, while the anti-semitic tropes play to people's disaffection and powerlessness such that if Lab can show it is batting for the little guy against "The [Jewish] Man" who, as we know from that historical document mural, control all the money and have their feet on the necks of the lumpenproletariat, then for Labour that's a good thing.
Forgive me if I am being a bit thick, but, if your flock is slaughtered, and you receive compensation, aren't you still out of a job? Because you then become a sheep less sheep farmer?
Plenty of options if you have the land.
In the fells of Cumbria for example? Other than rewilding, which wouldn't be a bad option in my view, not immediately obvious what the demand would be.
Forestry! Good for water management, biodiversity and the best form of carbon capture.
Hill grazing land is not really suited to farming other than sheep. I suspect may not go down well in Brecon.
Sorry, but forestry is not eco-friendly. In many areas it results in huge decline of biodiversity and soil damage as the most efficient forestry involves non-indigenous tree species. Try going into a Forestry Commission woodland and see how much diversity you can see. Low intensity hill farming results in very diverse habitats
I agree on pine plantations, but I have in mind reafforestation with ancient British woodland species. The purpose of carbon capture is to keep the biomass alive as long as possible.
This supports the view that a lot of remainers voted tactically for Labour, to remove Mrs M’s majority, which hit the LibDems in particular.
If this is true then Richard Leonard’s team really are at risk of going sub-10%.
This has been the most significant change in voting behaviour during my lifetime: the decline of the SLab vote from c50% to c10%. Amazing.
Tories beware: the number of Tory supporters who prefer Remain (c35% of Con VI) could desert you just as pro-independence SLab supporters (was c40% of SLab VI) deserted them.
Same with the Labour Party. Their institutional anti-semitism and shoot the messenger strategy must at some point cut through.
And I think they are quite happy that it does because in their calculus they will get more votes being perceived to be anti-semitic than they will if they explicitly reject or address it.
Hinting that they hate Jews so as to hoover up the Muslim vote?
No, not for me. I do not believe that for a second.
That's cool you're not forced to believe it. I don't think there is a particular "Muslim vote". I do think that broadly the Jews are such a tiny constituency, while the anti-semitic tropes play to people's disaffection and powerlessness such that if Lab can show it is batting for the little guy against "The [Jewish] Man" who, as we know from that historical document mural, control all the money and have their feet on the necks of the lumpenproletariat, then for Labour that's a good thing.
Lumpenproletariat - now that's a great phrase. Being a bit lumpen myself I don't think you've used it particularly correct ; but still.
Same with the Labour Party. Their institutional anti-semitism and shoot the messenger strategy must at some point cut through.
And I think they are quite happy that it does because in their calculus they will get more votes being perceived to be anti-semitic than they will if they explicitly reject or address it.
Hinting that they hate Jews so as to hoover up the Muslim vote?
No, not for me. I do not believe that for a second.
That's cool you're not forced to believe it. I don't think there is a particular "Muslim vote". I do think that broadly the Jews are such a tiny constituency, while the anti-semitic tropes play to people's disaffection and powerlessness such that if Lab can show it is batting for the little guy against "The [Jewish] Man" who, as we know from that historical document mural, control all the money and have their feet on the necks of the lumpenproletariat, then for Labour that's a good thing.
Lumpenproletariat - now that's a great phrase. Being a bit lumpen myself I don't think you've used it particularly correct ; but still.
Lidlproletariat? The masses uninterested in class struggle. Seems to be quite apt to me.
in the case of no deal brexit it will not even be put on a ferry either here or on the UK. The agreement that allows the food to be traded is in the EU agreements. So if we leave with no deal we can not sell certain foods to them and they can not sell certain foods to use. Which is why in the case of no deal a mini deal on food would be done.
Given that our No Deal plan seems to be let things in and ignore paper work why would the EU provide us with a deal to allow us to export goods when we are allowing imports to occur regardless.
Yes the No Deal people are that thick and really don't understand Game theory let alone negotiation tactics.
Our no deal plan is not to ignore regulations. The press is full of food shortage warnings, which can only occur if we do not ignore current regulations.
Could you try that last sentence again it actually reads " The press is full of food shortage warnings, which can only occur if we do not ignore follow current regulations.
As for racism, I don't think either state is constitutionally racist, although both are practically racist, in that the British state's policies and the method of enacting said policies seem to disproportionately target and discriminate against ethnic minorities.
I wouldn't say the UK is a practically racist state, unless one is arguing that every political entity is practically racist.
I would say that pretty much all of the post imperial powers and their colonies are practically racist states. Laws in this country are not universally applied; illegal drug usage is about even split across racial lines, for instance, yet arrests are higher amongst non white people. Non white people are disproportionately likely to be affected by austerity and cuts to public services. Courts are more likely to hand down harsher sentences for the same crime. And when the media talks about the working class, there is always an assumed "white" before hand, making the working class seem a monolith whereas the working class in this country has a large number of non white people. We could talk about further structural inequalities in education, healthcare and elsewhere...
When everywhere is racist, nowhere is. This is pretty small beer.
If your definition of "practically a racist state" is simply a literal apartheid state, sure, hardly anywhere is racist. If your definition is instead one that takes the view that the policies of policing, the judiciary, education, healthcare and welfare mean that white people come out much better than non white people (on average, controlling for class), yes most of the old colonial powers and the US are very much racist.
White people come out *slightly* better on average in the UK than people who aren't white, but the difference is slight. And one's social class is a far better determinant of outcomes than race. It's far preferable to be born to a black middle class family than a white working class family.
Same with the Labour Party. Their institutional anti-semitism and shoot the messenger strategy must at some point cut through.
And I think they are quite happy that it does because in their calculus they will get more votes being perceived to be anti-semitic than they will if they explicitly reject or address it.
Hinting that they hate Jews so as to hoover up the Muslim vote?
No, not for me. I do not believe that for a second.
That's cool you're not forced to believe it. I don't think there is a particular "Muslim vote". I do think that broadly the Jews are such a tiny constituency, while the anti-semitic tropes play to people's disaffection and powerlessness such that if Lab can show it is batting for the little guy against "The [Jewish] Man" who, as we know from that historical document mural, control all the money and have their feet on the necks of the lumpenproletariat, then for Labour that's a good thing.
Lumpenproletariat - now that's a great phrase. Being a bit lumpen myself I don't think you've used it particularly correct ; but still.
Lidlproletariat? The masses uninterested in class struggle. Seems to be quite apt to me.
Works for me. Labour voters would of course just prefer the term "proletariat" for themselves if they know what it means.
Mr. Eagles, if we go straight to election time, surely that's a wonderful scenario for the Lib Dems?
They're actually pro-EU, not floppy pro-EU like Labour. They'll benefit from tactical voting (whereas the Conservatives will be hit mostly by BP splits). They'll have a leader who isn't utterly incompetent, unlike the two main parties.
....
Tempted to put a little on them getting most votes/seats.
yes, but you could argue that they were not chosen as slaves because they were a different race, simply that they were from a different "tribe", or maybe spoke a different language, or were from a lesser social order. Race as we understand it now is almost certainly a very modern concept.
Isn't it just a difference of the size of the groups which are defined as 'us' vs 'them'?
Kind of. But one tribesman from Gaul could be a Roman, and the other a slave, depending on whether they bought into the Roman state, not because of their racial attributes, not because they were from Gaul rather than the Peninsula.
Interestingly the fall of Rome arguably was caused when some Roman elites refused to continue the practice of integration in attempt to make Rome great again, which heightened tensions with Gaulish and Germanic generals who would otherwise have been granted Roman citizenship, and instead ended up warring with the Roman state.
But also also, there is a reason why we talk about racism today. Because the European colonial powers and their racist policies are barely a lifetime out of memory, and very much affect people today. Things like that spectator article that did the rounds asking if Normans should give reparations to Anglo Saxons miss the point that the impacts of those issues are now gone to the wayside due to time and other factors. We accept the logic when it comes to reparations for Jewish victims of the Holocaust, but when the British Empire extracted the wealth of India to benefit those living in England (for example) the idea of reparations become unthinkable.
Hmm, with you until the last sentence, but really that is revisionism. The idea that India was some kind of non-racist social democratic paradise, prosperous and with the prosperity fairly distributed and minorities protected, until the hated British came and stole the wealth, is completely out with the fairies.
The caste system is a very enduring system of institutionalised racism.
Racism is as old as history. Caesar exterminated entire German and Gallic tribes.
As for why - these things are only an issue due to a No Deal exit, if we leave with a Deal we can still export food to the EU - without a deal we can't...
And remember Boris promised during the referendum that we wouldn't leaving without a deal - BMW, Mercedes and VW would make sure of that..
or food safety.
Note - my post isn't about subsidies remaining - it's about the sudden destruction of the export market resulting in an additional significant loss of sales...
1 and 2 are given - this has nothing to do with either of them - a No Deal Brexit means most farmers have no market to sell their product to...
ecause they want their members to have these price rises.
Did I mention tariffs? It's red tape that will kill us - sorry that meat can't leave the ferry it's not certified....
would be done.
Excellent! Perhaps you can tell us *when* this mini deal will be done, and with whom. Because Boris, pbuh, is about to send Parliament on its holidays, have a General Election, and there is a limit on what the civil service can do by itself legally. We're kind of running out of time.
They have been done - The EU has agreed to recognise UK food safety standards as have we agreed the same to the EU.
But there will still be sanitary checks - and I suspect as with Roger and Nice airport they will be very slowly checked...
Yes but the EU has varying levels of percentages that have to be checked. For example if the EU trusts the third party countries standards then 25% of the imports from that country of fresh chicken needs to be checked at a BIP. If the EU does not trust then 100% is checked i.e Thailand Chicken. They vary by different animals as well.
yes, but you could argue that they were not chosen as slaves because they were a different race, simply that they were from a different "tribe", or maybe spoke a different language, or were from a lesser social order. Race as we understand it now is almost certainly a very modern concept.
Isn't it just a difference of the size of the groups which are defined as 'us' vs 'them'?
Kind of. But one tribesman from Gaul could be a Roman, and the other a slave, depending on whether they bought into the Roman state, not because of their racial attributes, not because they were from Gaul rather than the Peninsula.
Interestingly the fall of Rome arguably was caused when some Roman elites refused to continue the practice of integration in attempt to make Rome great again, which heightened tensions with Gaulish and Germanic generals who would otherwise have been granted Roman citizenship, and instead ended up warring with the Roman state.
But also also, there is a reason why we talk about racism today. Because the European colonial powers and their racist policies are barely a lifetime out of memory, and very much affect people today. Things like that spectator article that did the rounds asking if Normans should give reparations to Anglo Saxons miss the point that the impacts of those issues are now gone to the wayside due to time and other factors. We accept the logic when it comes to reparations for Jewish victims of the Holocaust, but when the British Empire extracted the wealth of India to benefit those living in England (for example) the idea of reparations become unthinkable.
Hmm, with you until the last sentence, but really that is revisionism. The idea that India was some kind of non-racist social democratic paradise, prosperous and with the prosperity fairly distributed and minorities protected, until the hated British came and stole the wealth, is completely out with the fairies.
I don't think I claimed it was. India had it's own class and caste system, with religious and racial animus I am sure. But the fact we took the wealth and installed our own political class meant that they had to deal with those issues on top of Imperialism. Had the British not turned up maybe they would have dealt with that in their own time, in their own way, and made a better job of it than post Imperial India. The point is the Empire didn't give them that freedom, it was taken by the point of a gun. As someone who has personally benefited from that, I think it is only fair to point it out and try to redress the issue.
Looking more into that particular person, there is no way any political leader should be inviting him to lunch. He is a bigot plain and simple. He might justify it as a result of his choice to follow a particular form of Judaism. But he is still a bigot.
A bigot who supported the protests outside the Birmingham schools.
Yet Corbyn is happy to invite him round for lunch.
Thanks Jezza.
Not ok to sit down next to Chuka, but perfectly fine to sit down next to a homophobic bigot.
If we leave aside the 2015 revelation that Corbyn was a friend and supporter of Paul Eisen, this has now been a constant running sore for over a year.
At what point would a sensible person have got a grip?
If we lived somewhere where Boris's favourite love Island contestant wasn't front page news it would be possible for Corbyn and co to start asking sensible questions whether it is desirable for Israel to describe itslf as a Jewish State' and to question Mark Regev- ex Israeli propaganda chief current Israeli Ambassador to London-'s part in the continuous stories-real and false-about Corbyn's so called 'anti semitism'.
Would you call England a Christian State?
No! Would you?
Yes of course I would you big banana because that's what it is. The Church of England (there is a hint in there) is the STATE church and only a protestant can become king or queen.
What would you call it?
I see you've skipped from the idea of the English state to the British state and back again. I love these quaint old English..er..British traditions.
Scotland has an established church as well.
Nope. Parliament even passed an Act confirming that that was not the case: Church of Scotland Act 1921
I don't think I claimed it was. India had it's own class and caste system, with religious and racial animus I am sure. But the fact we took the wealth and installed our own political class meant that they had to deal with those issues on top of Imperialism. Had the British not turned up maybe they would have dealt with that in their own time, in their own way, and made a better job of it than post Imperial India. The point is the Empire didn't give them that freedom, it was taken by the point of a gun. As someone who has personally benefited from that, I think it is only fair to point it out and try to redress the issue.
Actually to a large extent we did give them freedom, and education, and protection from oppression, and courts which were fairer than anything known before. Certainly for many Indians life was better under the British Empire than it was under the rule of capricious and despotic (and racist) Mughals or some of the Hindu princes. It is as absurd to see the British Empire as an unmitigated evil as it is to see it through rose-tinted spectacles as beyond reproach.
Looking more into that particular person, there is no way any political leader should be inviting him to lunch. He is a bigot plain and simple. He might justify it as a result of his choice to follow a particular form of Judaism. But he is still a bigot.
A bigot who supported the protests outside the Birmingham schools.
Yet Corbyn is happy to invite him round for lunch.
Thanks Jezza.
Not ok to sit down next to Chuka, but perfectly fine to sit down next to a homophobic bigot.
We know now where Corbyn's priorities lay.
A step up from the IRA, though. At least he isn’t trying to kill people.
Perhaps Peston is reading these threads which is a bit of a worry because I am basically a guy in his pants on the sofa (metaphorically, I’m actually in a shirt and slacks at the office right now.)
Worth recalling that at the start of the hybrid era, Williams was the closest challenger to Mercedes. Major changes can lead to a serious shift in the pecking order. McLaren and Renault will be looking to make a great leap forward, and Red Bull going from occasional wins to claiming titles again.
Looking more into that particular person, there is no way any political leader should be inviting him to lunch. He is a bigot plain and simple. He might justify it as a result of his choice to follow a particular form of Judaism. But he is still a bigot.
A bigot who supported the protests outside the Birmingham schools.
Yet Corbyn is happy to invite him round for lunch.
Thanks Jezza.
Not ok to sit down next to Chuka, but perfectly fine to sit down next to a homophobic bigot.
We know now where Corbyn's priorities lay.
A step up from the IRA, though. At least he isn’t trying to kill people.
Given the high suicide rates in young LGBT+ communities, I think you can argue that giving even a shred of credibility to this bigot is doing serious harm.
Looking more into that particular person, there is no way any political leader should be inviting him to lunch. He is a bigot plain and simple. He might justify it as a result of his choice to follow a particular form of Judaism. But he is still a bigot.
A bigot who supported the protests outside the Birmingham schools.
Yet Corbyn is happy to invite him round for lunch.
Thanks Jezza.
Not ok to sit down next to Chuka, but perfectly fine to sit down next to a homophobic bigot.
We know now where Corbyn's priorities lay.
A step up from the IRA, though. At least he isn’t trying to kill people.
Given the high suicide rates in young LGBT+ communities, I think you can argue that giving even a shred of credibility to this bigot is doing serious harm.
So when Shagger Johnson appoints the bigot McVey to his cabinet.
Looking more into that particular person, there is no way any political leader should be inviting him to lunch. He is a bigot plain and simple. He might justify it as a result of his choice to follow a particular form of Judaism. But he is still a bigot.
A bigot who supported the protests outside the Birmingham schools.
Yet Corbyn is happy to invite him round for lunch.
Thanks Jezza.
Not ok to sit down next to Chuka, but perfectly fine to sit down next to a homophobic bigot.
We know now where Corbyn's priorities lay.
A step up from the IRA, though. At least he isn’t trying to kill people.
Given the high suicide rates in young LGBT+ communities, I think you can argue that giving even a shred of credibility to this bigot is doing serious harm.
So when Shagger Johnson appoints the bigot McVey to his cabinet.
I will call out any homophobe - from whatever background. Indeed, I have already condemned McVey very clearly on here on a number of occasions
Looking more into that particular person, there is no way any political leader should be inviting him to lunch. He is a bigot plain and simple. He might justify it as a result of his choice to follow a particular form of Judaism. But he is still a bigot.
A bigot who supported the protests outside the Birmingham schools.
Yet Corbyn is happy to invite him round for lunch.
Thanks Jezza.
Not ok to sit down next to Chuka, but perfectly fine to sit down next to a homophobic bigot.
We know now where Corbyn's priorities lay.
A step up from the IRA, though. At least he isn’t trying to kill people.
Given the high suicide rates in young LGBT+ communities, I think you can argue that giving even a shred of credibility to this bigot is doing serious harm.
I'll play.
I'm with the muslims & catholics (and apparently a jewish person) on this one.
1. Primary school too young to be learning same sex relationships "let kids be kids"
2. You can't change your gender. Castor is Castor and want's to be female and that's fine and other female atheletes should just have to up their game. Chopping off dicks (Especially pre-18) is just wrong.
If we leave aside the 2015 revelation that Corbyn was a friend and supporter of Paul Eisen, this has now been a constant running sore for over a year.
At what point would a sensible person have got a grip?
If we lived somewhere where Boris's favourite love Island contestant wasn't front page news it would be possible for Corbyn and co to start asking sensible questions whether it is desirable for Israel to describe itslf as a Jewish State' and to question Mark Regev- ex Israeli propaganda chief current Israeli Ambassador to London-'s part in the continuous stories-real and false-about Corbyn's so called 'anti semitism'.
Would you call England a Christian State?
No! Would you?
Yes of course I would you big banana because that's what it is. The Church of England (there is a hint in there) is the STATE church and only a protestant can become king or queen.
What would you call it?
I see you've skipped from the idea of the English state to the British state and back again. I love these quaint old English..er..British traditions.
Scotland has an established church as well.
Nope. Parliament even passed an Act confirming that that was not the case: Church of Scotland Act 1921
That ruled it did not have to take orders from the government, but at the same time it confirmed it as the national and civic Church of Scotland, as it had been since being officially established in 1560.
Looking more into that particular person, there is no way any political leader should be inviting him to lunch. He is a bigot plain and simple. He might justify it as a result of his choice to follow a particular form of Judaism. But he is still a bigot.
A bigot who supported the protests outside the Birmingham schools.
Yet Corbyn is happy to invite him round for lunch.
Thanks Jezza.
Not ok to sit down next to Chuka, but perfectly fine to sit down next to a homophobic bigot.
We know now where Corbyn's priorities lay.
A step up from the IRA, though. At least he isn’t trying to kill people.
Given the high suicide rates in young LGBT+ communities, I think you can argue that giving even a shred of credibility to this bigot is doing serious harm.
I'll play.
I'm with the muslims & catholics (and apparently a jewish person) on this one.
1. Primary school too young to be learning same sex relationships "let kids be kids"
2. You can't change your gender. Castor is Castor and want's to be female and that's fine and other female atheletes should just have to up their game. Chopping off dicks (Especially pre-18) is just wrong.
My boys, both under 10, have been to a few same sex weddings, the only thing that confused them was who gets to throw the bouquet, because they want Daddy to catch it.
There's no point in Labour getting rid of Corbyn if they replaced him with another person most voters would regard as very left-wing, like RLB. They need to replace him with a moderate like Yvette Cooper or Tom Watson.
Actually I think a lot of voters who are anti-Corbyn are willing to accept a pretty left-wing programme as preferable to the current Government - I think Southam for one has said as much. What is less clear is what that group will do if they live in marginal Con-Lab seats and it's Boris vs Corbyn.
Nick, is there such a thing as living in the past left wing, and living in the 21st century left wing? In that it’s the end result you are trying to achieve, and non prescriptive on what achieves that quickly, cheaply and effectively?
There are umpteen models for that - to a greater or lesser extent everyone from McDonnell to Blair is somewhere on the ideological-pragmatic scale. Scandinavia is still the obvious example of reasonably equal societies achieved with high taxes but lots of private enterprise. Labour retains an attachment to public ownership of natural monopolies (like water supply and rail) but the main focus is really on public services.
Looking more into that particular person, there is no way any political leader should be inviting him to lunch. He is a bigot plain and simple. He might justify it as a result of his choice to follow a particular form of Judaism. But he is still a bigot.
A bigot who supported the protests outside the Birmingham schools.
Yet Corbyn is happy to invite him round for lunch.
Thanks Jezza.
Not ok to sit down next to Chuka, but perfectly fine to sit down next to a homophobic bigot.
We know now where Corbyn's priorities lay.
A step up from the IRA, though. At least he isn’t trying to kill people.
Given the high suicide rates in young LGBT+ communities, I think you can argue that giving even a shred of credibility to this bigot is doing serious harm.
I'll play.
I'm with the muslims & catholics (and apparently a jewish person) on this one.
1. Primary school too young to be learning same sex relationships "let kids be kids"
2. You can't change your gender. Castor is Castor and want's to be female and that's fine and other female atheletes should just have to up their game. Chopping off dicks (Especially pre-18) is just wrong.
My boys, both under 10, have been to a few same sex weddings, the only thing that confused them was who gets to throw the bouquet, because they want Daddy to catch it.
Well nice anecdote. Kids aren't stupid. And if your boys haven't had these new lessons it backs up my point. If they have and that's what you attribute their non-confusedness to well I will have to take that on board given my social science training.
Looking more into that particular person, there is no way any political leader should be inviting him to lunch. He is a bigot plain and simple. He might justify it as a result of his choice to follow a particular form of Judaism. But he is still a bigot.
A bigot who supported the protests outside the Birmingham schools.
Yet Corbyn is happy to invite him round for lunch.
Thanks Jezza.
Not ok to sit down next to Chuka, but perfectly fine to sit down next to a homophobic bigot.
We know now where Corbyn's priorities lay.
A step up from the IRA, though. At least he isn’t trying to kill people.
Given the high suicide rates in young LGBT+ communities, I think you can argue that giving even a shred of credibility to this bigot is doing serious harm.
I'll play.
I'm with the muslims & catholics (and apparently a jewish person) on this one.
1. Primary school too young to be learning same sex relationships "let kids be kids"
2. You can't change your gender. Castor is Castor and want's to be female and that's fine and other female atheletes should just have to up their game. Chopping off dicks (Especially pre-18) is just wrong.
I think if you had added that it was equally wrong for patents to tell their children that god says same sex relationships are wrong you may have a point. Same sex relationships exist and the pupils need to understand that those in them are not inferior by virtue of that relationship.
Looking more into that particular person, there is no way any political leader should be inviting him to lunch. He is a bigot plain and simple. He might justify it as a result of his choice to follow a particular form of Judaism. But he is still a bigot.
A bigot who supported the protests outside the Birmingham schools.
Yet Corbyn is happy to invite him round for lunch.
Thanks Jezza.
Not ok to sit down next to Chuka, but perfectly fine to sit down next to a homophobic bigot.
We know now where Corbyn's priorities lay.
A step up from the IRA, though. At least he isn’t trying to kill people.
Given the high suicide rates in young LGBT+ communities, I think you can argue that giving even a shred of credibility to this bigot is doing serious harm.
I'll play.
I'm with the muslims & catholics (and apparently a jewish person) on this one.
1. Primary school too young to be learning same sex relationships "let kids be kids"
2. You can't change your gender. Castor is Castor and want's to be female and that's fine and other female atheletes should just have to up their game. Chopping off dicks (Especially pre-18) is just wrong.
My boys, both under 10, have been to a few same sex weddings, the only thing that confused them was who gets to throw the bouquet, because they want Daddy to catch it.
Well nice anecdote. Kids aren't stupid. And if your boys haven't had these new lessons it backs up my point. If they have and that's what you attribute their non-confusedness to well I will have to take that on board given my social science training.
Lots of my dearest and oldest friends are gay/bi and they’ve spent so much time with them from very early ages, they are aware that same sex relationships are normal.
Looking more into that particular person, there is no way any political leader should be inviting him to lunch. He is a bigot plain and simple. He might justify it as a result of his choice to follow a particular form of Judaism. But he is still a bigot.
A bigot who supported the protests outside the Birmingham schools.
Yet Corbyn is happy to invite him round for lunch.
Thanks Jezza.
Not ok to sit down next to Chuka, but perfectly fine to sit down next to a homophobic bigot.
We know now where Corbyn's priorities lay.
A step up from the IRA, though. At least he isn’t trying to kill people.
Given the high suicide rates in young LGBT+ communities, I think you can argue that giving even a shred of credibility to this bigot is doing serious harm.
I'll play.
I'm with the muslims & catholics (and apparently a jewish person) on this one.
1. Primary school too young to be learning same sex relationships "let kids be kids"
2. You can't change your gender. Castor is Castor and want's to be female and that's fine and other female atheletes should just have to up their game. Chopping off dicks (Especially pre-18) is just wrong.
My boys, both under 10, have been to a few same sex weddings, the only thing that confused them was who gets to throw the bouquet, because they want Daddy to catch it.
I trust they are trying to set you up on blind dates?
Looking more into that particular person, there is no way any political leader should be inviting him to lunch. He is a bigot plain and simple. He might justify it as a result of his choice to follow a particular form of Judaism. But he is still a bigot.
A bigot who supported the protests outside the Birmingham schools.
Yet Corbyn is happy to invite him round for lunch.
Thanks Jezza.
Not ok to sit down next to Chuka, but perfectly fine to sit down next to a homophobic bigot.
There's no point in Labour getting rid of Corbyn if they replaced him with another person most voters would regard as very left-wing, like RLB. They need to replace him with a moderate like Yvette Cooper or Tom Watson.
Actually I think a lot of voters who are anti-Corbyn are willing to accept a pretty left-wing programme as preferable to the current Government - I think Southam for one has said as much. What is less clear is what that group will do if they live in marginal Con-Lab seats and it's Boris vs Corbyn.
Nick, is there such a thing as living in the past left wing, and living in the 21st century left wing? In that it’s the end result you are trying to achieve, and non prescriptive on what achieves that quickly, cheaply and effectively?
There are umpteen models for that - to a greater or lesser extent everyone from McDonnell to Blair is somewhere on the ideological-pragmatic scale. Scandinavia is still the obvious example of reasonably equal societies achieved with high taxes but lots of private enterprise. Labour retains an attachment to public ownership of natural monopolies (like water supply and rail) but the main focus is really on public services.
Rail is not a natural monopoly. Quite apart from the fact that different companies can compete over the same or similar routes, rail faces natural competition from car, air, coach and bus transport.
Looking more into that particular person, there is no way any political leader should be inviting him to lunch. He is a bigot plain and simple. He might justify it as a result of his choice to follow a particular form of Judaism. But he is still a bigot.
A bigot who supported the protests outside the Birmingham schools.
Yet Corbyn is happy to invite him round for lunch.
Thanks Jezza.
Not ok to sit down next to Chuka, but perfectly fine to sit down next to a homophobic bigot.
We know now where Corbyn's priorities lay.
A step up from the IRA, though. At least he isn’t trying to kill people.
Given the high suicide rates in young LGBT+ communities, I think you can argue that giving even a shred of credibility to this bigot is doing serious harm.
I'll play.
I'm with the muslims & catholics (and apparently a jewish person) on this one.
1. Primary school too young to be learning same sex relationships "let kids be kids"
2. You can't change your gender. Castor is Castor and want's to be female and that's fine and other female atheletes should just have to up their game. Chopping off dicks (Especially pre-18) is just wrong.
My boys, both under 10, have been to a few same sex weddings, the only thing that confused them was who gets to throw the bouquet, because they want Daddy to catch it.
Well nice anecdote. Kids aren't stupid. And if your boys haven't had these new lessons it backs up my point. If they have and that's what you attribute their non-confusedness to well I will have to take that on board given my social science training.
Lots of my dearest and oldest friends are gay/bi and they’ve spent so much time with them from very early ages, they are aware that same sex relationships are normal.
It doesn’t phase them in the slightest.
Okay. You're being very diplomatic. Let's not use your children as devices in this argument. (PS - I'm sure you're a great dad)
There's no point in Labour getting rid of Corbyn if they replaced him with another person most voters would regard as very left-wing, like RLB. They need to replace him with a moderate like Yvette Cooper or Tom Watson.
Actually I think a lot of voters who are anti-Corbyn are willing to accept a pretty left-wing programme as preferable to the current Government - I think Southam for one has said as much. What is less clear is what that group will do if they live in marginal Con-Lab seats and it's Boris vs Corbyn.
Nick, is there such a thing as living in the past left wing, and living in the 21st century left wing? In that it’s the end result you are trying to achieve, and non prescriptive on what achieves that quickly, cheaply and effectively?
There are umpteen models for that - to a greater or lesser extent everyone from McDonnell to Blair is somewhere on the ideological-pragmatic scale. Scandinavia is still the obvious example of reasonably equal societies achieved with high taxes but lots of private enterprise. Labour retains an attachment to public ownership of natural monopolies (like water supply and rail) but the main focus is really on public services.
Rail is not a natural monopoly. Quite apart from the fact that different companies can compete over the same or similar routes, rail faces natural competition from car, air, coach and bus transport.
I think rail does have a monopoly for a lot of London commuters.
Looking more into that particular person, there is no way any political leader should be inviting him to lunch. He is a bigot plain and simple. He might justify it as a result of his choice to follow a particular form of Judaism. But he is still a bigot.
A bigot who supported the protests outside the Birmingham schools.
Yet Corbyn is happy to invite him round for lunch.
Thanks Jezza.
Not ok to sit down next to Chuka, but perfectly fine to sit down next to a homophobic bigot.
We know now where Corbyn's priorities lay.
A step up from the IRA, though. At least he isn’t trying to kill people.
Given the high suicide rates in young LGBT+ communities, I think you can argue that giving even a shred of credibility to this bigot is doing serious harm.
I'll play.
I'm with the muslims & catholics (and apparently a jewish person) on this one.
1. Primary school too young to be learning same sex relationships "let kids be kids"
This is a Wrong opinion. For a start, quite a lot of children live in families where there are same-sex relationships, so it can hardly be "too young" for those children to learn about the facts of their own families. Then, we don't want those children to be bullied at school. The opposite, in fact: we want those children to be accepted and loved by their peers, on the basis that there is nothing abnormal about them or their families. For this ethos to exist, the school cannot stick its head in the sand, but must address the matter head-on. Even in schools/classes where it might be determined that none of the children's families contain same-sex relationships (and I'm not sure why any (head)teacher would assume this anyway) it's surely right for schools to mitigate prejudice by referencing the equality of all people in society. Even if a school is somewhat homogeneous, it doesn't exist in a bubble, and it's right for schools to prepare children to accept difference.
Looking more into that particular person, there is no way any political leader should be inviting him to lunch. He is a bigot plain and simple. He might justify it as a result of his choice to follow a particular form of Judaism. But he is still a bigot.
A bigot who supported the protests outside the Birmingham schools.
Yet Corbyn is happy to invite him round for lunch.
Thanks Jezza.
Not ok to sit down next to Chuka, but perfectly fine to sit down next to a homophobic bigot.
We know now where Corbyn's priorities lay.
A step up from the IRA, though. At least he isn’t trying to kill people.
Given the high suicide rates in young LGBT+ communities, I think you can argue that giving even a shred of credibility to this bigot is doing serious harm.
I'll play.
I'm with the muslims & catholics (and apparently a jewish person) on this one.
1. Primary school too young to be learning same sex relationships "let kids be kids"
2. You can't change your gender. Castor is Castor and want's to be female and that's fine and other female atheletes should just have to up their game. Chopping off dicks (Especially pre-18) is just wrong.
This isn't play. This is hard reality.
Mental health diagnoses in the straight community - 25% Mental health diagnoses in the LGBT+ communities - 40%+ (in some sectors, 70%)
This is the reality - your attempt to turn it into some sort of game is distasteful at best.
Primary school kids should be taught that about all the forms of relationships that we recognise as a society. It does ZERO harm and, indeed, reduces it.
Gender is a very modern concept - and you are showing your ignorance by not understanding what it means.
So stop playing and try educating yourself as to what is actually going on in society.
Looking more into that particular person, there is no way any political leader should be inviting him to lunch. He is a bigot plain and simple. He might justify it as a result of his choice to follow a particular form of Judaism. But he is still a bigot.
A bigot who supported the protests outside the Birmingham schools.
Yet Corbyn is happy to invite him round for lunch.
Thanks Jezza.
Not ok to sit down next to Chuka, but perfectly fine to sit down next to a homophobic bigot.
We know now where Corbyn's priorities lay.
It is not A FORM of Judaism it is simply Judaism. ALL Orthodox Jews believe that same sex relationship are sinful. That is just the tip of the iceburg but I can't be bothered to go through all 630 rules.
In other news the drummer of Jamiroquoi is playing in a Villefranche bar 20 meters from here tonight. Do I go to that or the reworking of Lion King at the open air cinema. Life's a bitch in the EU......
Looking more into that particular person, there is no way any political leader should be inviting him to lunch. He is a bigot plain and simple. He might justify it as a result of his choice to follow a particular form of Judaism. But he is still a bigot.
A bigot who supported the protests outside the Birmingham schools.
Yet Corbyn is happy to invite him round for lunch.
Thanks Jezza.
Not ok to sit down next to Chuka, but perfectly fine to sit down next to a homophobic bigot.
We know now where Corbyn's priorities lay.
A step up from the IRA, though. At least he isn’t trying to kill people.
Given the high suicide rates in young LGBT+ communities, I think you can argue that giving even a shred of credibility to this bigot is doing serious harm.
I'll play.
I'm with the muslims & catholics (and apparently a jewish person) on this one.
1. Primary school too young to be learning same sex relationships "let kids be kids"
2. You can't change your gender. Castor is Castor and want's to be female and that's fine and other female atheletes should just have to up their game. Chopping off dicks (Especially pre-18) is just wrong.
My boys, both under 10, have been to a few same sex weddings, the only thing that confused them was who gets to throw the bouquet, because they want Daddy to catch it.
Well nice anecdote. Kids aren't stupid. And if your boys haven't had these new lessons it backs up my point. If they have and that's what you attribute their non-confusedness to well I will have to take that on board given my social science training.
Lots of my dearest and oldest friends are gay/bi and they’ve spent so much time with them from very early ages, they are aware that same sex relationships are normal.
It doesn’t phase them in the slightest.
Okay. You're being very diplomatic. Let's not use your children as devices in this argument. (PS - I'm sure you're a great dad)
Still, TSE should know the difference between phase and faze.
Perhaps Peston is reading these threads which is a bit of a worry because I am basically a guy in his pants on the sofa (metaphorically, I’m actually in a shirt and slacks at the office right now.)
Yes, but you also have more insight and instinct for politics than Peston.
Peston is useful to follow because he's a well-connected idiot, which means that lots of people leak to him (or spin him a line).
Looking more into that particular person, there is no way any political leader should be inviting him to lunch. He is a bigot plain and simple. He might justify it as a result of his choice to follow a particular form of Judaism. But he is still a bigot.
A bigot who supported the protests outside the Birmingham schools.
Yet Corbyn is happy to invite him round for lunch.
Thanks Jezza.
Not ok to sit down next to Chuka, but perfectly fine to sit down next to a homophobic bigot.
We know now where Corbyn's priorities lay.
A step up from the IRA, though. At least he isn’t trying to kill people.
Given the high suicide rates in young LGBT+ communities, I think you can argue that giving even a shred of credibility to this bigot is doing serious harm.
I'll play.
I'm with the muslims & catholics (and apparently a jewish person) on this one.
1. Primary school too young to be learning same sex relationships "let kids be kids"
This is a Wrong opinion. For a start, quite a lot of children live in families where there are same-sex relationships, so it can hardly be "too young" for those children to learn about the facts of their own families. Then, we don't want those children to be bullied at school. The opposite, in fact: we want those children to be accepted and loved by their peers, on the basis that there is nothing abnormal about them or their families. For this ethos to exist, the school cannot stick its head in the sand, but must address the matter head-on. Even in schools/classes where it might be determined that none of the children's families contain same-sex relationships (and I'm not sure why any (head)teacher would assume this anyway) it's surely right for schools to mitigate prejudice by referencing the equality of all people in society. Even if a school is somewhat homogeneous, it doesn't exist in a bubble, and it's right for schools to prepare children to accept difference.
There's no point in Labour getting rid of Corbyn if they replaced him with another person most voters would regard as very left-wing, like RLB. They need to replace him with a moderate like Yvette Cooper or Tom Watson.
Actually I think a lot of voters who are anti-Corbyn are willing to accept a pretty left-wing programme as preferable to the current Government - I think Southam for one has said as much. What is less clear is what that group will do if they live in marginal Con-Lab seats and it's Boris vs Corbyn.
Nick, is there such a thing as living in the past left wing, and living in the 21st century left wing? In that it’s the end result you are trying to achieve, and non prescriptive on what achieves that quickly, cheaply and effectively?
There are umpteen models for that - to a greater or lesser extent everyone from McDonnell to Blair is somewhere on the ideological-pragmatic scale. Scandinavia is still the obvious example of reasonably equal societies achieved with high taxes but lots of private enterprise. Labour retains an attachment to public ownership of natural monopolies (like water supply and rail) but the main focus is really on public services.
Rail is not a natural monopoly. Quite apart from the fact that different companies can compete over the same or similar routes, rail faces natural competition from car, air, coach and bus transport.
I think rail does have a monopoly for a lot of London commuters.
Rail might be most convenient for many London commuters but other options, from tube to bus to car will exist. In the medium term, relocation - either of living or working location - also becomes an option. It's not a natural monopoly in the same way that, say, water is.
Perhaps Peston is reading these threads which is a bit of a worry because I am basically a guy in his pants on the sofa (metaphorically, I’m actually in a shirt and slacks at the office right now.)
Looking more into that particular person, there is no way any political leader should be inviting him to lunch. He is a bigot plain and simple. He might justify it as a result of his choice to follow a particular form of Judaism. But he is still a bigot.
A bigot who supported the protests outside the Birmingham schools.
Yet Corbyn is happy to invite him round for lunch.
Thanks Jezza.
Not ok to sit down next to Chuka, but perfectly fine to sit down next to a homophobic bigot.
We know now where Corbyn's priorities lay.
It is not A FORM of Judaism it is simply Judaism. ALL Orthodox Jews believe that same sex relationship are sinful. That is just the tip of the iceburg but I can't be bothered to go through all 630 rules.
In other news the drummer of Jamiroquoi is playing in a Villefranche bar 20 meters from here tonight. Do I go to that or the reworking of Lion King at the open air cinema. Life's a bitch in the EU......
Just over 20% of Jews consider themselves to be Orthodox - it is very much a branch of Judaism - not all of it.
Looking more into that particular person, there is no way any political leader should be inviting him to lunch. He is a bigot plain and simple. He might justify it as a result of his choice to follow a particular form of Judaism. But he is still a bigot.
A bigot who supported the protests outside the Birmingham schools.
Yet Corbyn is happy to invite him round for lunch.
Thanks Jezza.
Not ok to sit down next to Chuka, but perfectly fine to sit down next to a homophobic bigot.
We know now where Corbyn's priorities lay.
A step up from the IRA, though. At least he isn’t trying to kill people.
Given the high suicide rates in young LGBT+ communities, I think you can argue that giving even a shred of credibility to this bigot is doing serious harm.
I'll play.
I'm with the muslims & catholics (and apparently a jewish person) on this one.
1. Primary school too young to be learning same sex relationships "let kids be kids"
This is a Wrong opinion. For a start, quite a lot of children live in families where there are same-sex relationships, so it can hardly be "too young" for those children to learn about the facts of their own families. Then, we don't want those children to be bullied at school. The opposite, in fact: we want those children to be accepted and loved by their peers, on the basis that there is nothing abnormal about them or their families. For this ethos to exist, the school cannot stick its head in the sand, but must address the matter head-on. Even in schools/classes where it might be determined that none of the children's families contain same-sex relationships (and I'm not sure why any (head)teacher would assume this anyway) it's surely right for schools to mitigate prejudice by referencing the equality of all people in society. Even if a school is somewhat homogeneous, it doesn't exist in a bubble, and it's right for schools to prepare children to accept difference.
Yes I'm well aware it's a wrong opinion.
If a child is raised by a same sex couple - why the hell would they need to learn about that at School?
And as for the other kids - is there really a reason for this to be tackled head-on (phrasing)
Anyway - the argument is already over. The lessons are happening and there's no turning back now.
(Edit - he's posted, I shall respond)Would be nice if oxfordsimon could turn up to call me a bigot though.
If a child is raised by a same sex couple - why the hell would they need to learn about that at School?
And as for the other kids - is there really a reason for this to be tackled head-on (phrasing)
Anyway - the argument is already over. The lessons are happening and there's no turning back now.
(Edit - he's posted, I shall respond)Would be nice if oxfordsimon could turn up to call me a bigot though.
A child with same sex parents should have their family acknowledged in their education
Children who share a classroom with such a child need to be shown that a same sex relationship is valid, legal and of equal status to that of a heterosexual relationship.
Having told us that No Deal is not going to be a problem, it will be interesting to see how long Johnson gets away with blaming the EU for all the difficulties that emerge once it actually happens.
Looking more into that particular person, there is no way any political leader should be inviting him to lunch. He is a bigot plain and simple. He might justify it as a result of his choice to follow a particular form of Judaism. But he is still a bigot.
A bigot who supported the protests outside the Birmingham schools.
Yet Corbyn is happy to invite him round for lunch.
Thanks Jezza.
Not ok to sit down next to Chuka, but perfectly fine to sit down next to a homophobic bigot.
We know now where Corbyn's priorities lay.
A step up from the IRA, though. At least he isn’t trying to kill people.
Given the high suicide rates in young LGBT+ communities, I think you can argue that giving even a shred of credibility to this bigot is doing serious harm.
I'll play.
I'm with the muslims & catholics (and apparently a jewish person) on this one.
1. Primary school too young to be learning same sex relationships "let kids be kids"
2. You can't change your gender. Castor is Castor and want's to be female and that's fine and other female atheletes should just have to up their game. Chopping off dicks (Especially pre-18) is just wrong.
This isn't play. This is hard reality.
Mental health diagnoses in the straight community - 25% Mental health diagnoses in the LGBT+ communities - 40%+ (in some sectors, 70%)
This is the reality - your attempt to turn it into some sort of game is distasteful at best.
Primary school kids should be taught that about all the forms of relationships that we recognise as a society. It does ZERO harm and, indeed, reduces it.
Gender is a very modern concept - and you are showing your ignorance by not understanding what it means.
So stop playing and try educating yourself as to what is actually going on in society.
I was wondering who was going to pick me up on my misuse of gender/sex - We have a winnar.
And I know it's not a game. Somethings happening that I disagree with and for once I'm on the same side as the muslims.
Despite Stuart D's statements I am actually interested in politics.
I think your mental health stats are a very weak play (I know it's not a game). I have a mental health diagnosis - apparently black people (I'm more diluted) have eight times the mental health illness rate. So what?
If I was the EU at this stage (and it’s unclear to me who “owns” Brexit strategy in the EU during this interregnum) do I have much incentive to alter the WA?
After all, if I hold fast, I might be able to trigger a VONC in the House of Commons and foil Boris at the outset, leading to either a GONU or a GE.
Looking more into that particular person, there is no way any political leader should be inviting him to lunch. He is a bigot plain and simple. He might justify it as a result of his choice to follow a particular form of Judaism. But he is still a bigot.
A bigot who supported the protests outside the Birmingham schools.
Yet Corbyn is happy to invite him round for lunch.
Thanks Jezza.
Not ok to sit down next to Chuka, but perfectly fine to sit down next to a homophobic bigot.
We know now where Corbyn's priorities lay.
It is not A FORM of Judaism it is simply Judaism. ALL Orthodox Jews believe that same sex relationship are sinful. That is just the tip of the iceburg but I can't be bothered to go through all 630 rules.
In other news the drummer of Jamiroquoi is playing in a Villefranche bar 20 meters from here tonight. Do I go to that or the reworking of Lion King at the open air cinema. Life's a bitch in the EU......
Just over 20% of Jews consider themselves to be Orthodox - it is very much a branch of Judaism - not all of it.
Of course I'm not talking about people who just happen to have a Jewish Mother. I'm talking about every practising Orthodox Jew. The Hasidim have taken it much further. You can recognise them by their dress and hair and hats.You really have to be extremely cautious about referring to people like Charedi as bigots. They are far more 'Jewish' than most claiming the heritage.
Wow so a minister who leaked info to the papers will be deputy PM.
Can one imagine the furore if Labour did this in government . Of course the right wing press won’t say a thing about Bozo putting Williamson in the cabinet .
Having told us that No Deal is not going to be a problem, it will be interesting to see how long Johnson gets away with blaming the EU for all the difficulties that emerge once it actually happens.
He'll probably try to convince us all it's 1940, he's Churchill and No Deal is the same as Dunkirk and the Blitz.
Comments
Hill grazing land is not really suited to farming other than sheep. I suspect may not go down well in Brecon.
Interestingly the fall of Rome arguably was caused when some Roman elites refused to continue the practice of integration in attempt to make Rome great again, which heightened tensions with Gaulish and Germanic generals who would otherwise have been granted Roman citizenship, and instead ended up warring with the Roman state.
But also also, there is a reason why we talk about racism today. Because the European colonial powers and their racist policies are barely a lifetime out of memory, and very much affect people today. Things like that spectator article that did the rounds asking if Normans should give reparations to Anglo Saxons miss the point that the impacts of those issues are now gone to the wayside due to time and other factors. We accept the logic when it comes to reparations for Jewish victims of the Holocaust, but when the British Empire extracted the wealth of India to benefit those living in England (for example) the idea of reparations become unthinkable.
Because the subconscious is so involved in the percolation of fiction, novelists often disclose more than they know or intend. Perhaps only Sigmund Freud could tell us why Johnson named a young woman after whom his alter ego Barlow lusts, “Cameron”, the Eton and Oxford contemporary who became his bitterest Tory rival.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jul/17/boris-johnson-seventy-two-virgins-novel
Yes the No Deal people are that thick and really don't understand Game theory let alone negotiation tactics.
And I think they are quite happy that it does because in their calculus they will get more votes being perceived to be anti-semitic than they will if they explicitly reject or address it.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1151478308225335297
Mr. Kirk, lamb's quite a nice meat. Some think it's a bit fatty, but as a thinner chap that's a plus for me.
No, not for me. I do not believe that for a second.
They have been done - The EU has agreed to recognise UK food safety standards as have we agreed the same to the EU.
historical documentmural, control all the money and have their feet on the necks of the lumpenproletariat, then for Labour that's a good thing.Mr. Eagles, supposing Boris wins, (and I realise this is a very difficult question to answer), what do you see happening next?
This has been the most significant change in voting behaviour during my lifetime: the decline of the SLab vote from c50% to c10%. Amazing.
Tories beware: the number of Tory supporters who prefer Remain (c35% of Con VI) could desert you just as pro-independence SLab supporters (was c40% of SLab VI) deserted them.
Oh.
i) Do we get a GONU that extends A50 and then calls an election
or
ii) We go straight to a general election
They're actually pro-EU, not floppy pro-EU like Labour. They'll benefit from tactical voting (whereas the Conservatives will be hit mostly by BP splits). They'll have a leader who isn't utterly incompetent, unlike the two main parties.
....
Tempted to put a little on them getting most votes/seats.
2(i). No, but there might be a Corbyn govt which does so.
2(ii). Possibly, which would be one hell of a mess.
Racism is as old as history. Caesar exterminated entire German and Gallic tribes.
A bigot who supported the protests outside the Birmingham schools.
Yet Corbyn is happy to invite him round for lunch.
Thanks Jezza.
Not ok to sit down next to Chuka, but perfectly fine to sit down next to a homophobic bigot.
We know now where Corbyn's priorities lay.
Perhaps Peston is reading these threads which is a bit of a worry because I am basically a guy in his pants on the sofa (metaphorically, I’m actually in a shirt and slacks at the office right now.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/49009359
Worth recalling that at the start of the hybrid era, Williams was the closest challenger to Mercedes. Major changes can lead to a serious shift in the pecking order. McLaren and Renault will be looking to make a great leap forward, and Red Bull going from occasional wins to claiming titles again.
I'm with the muslims & catholics (and apparently a jewish person) on this one.
1. Primary school too young to be learning same sex relationships "let kids be kids"
2. You can't change your gender. Castor is Castor and want's to be female and that's fine and other female atheletes should just have to up their game. Chopping off dicks (Especially pre-18) is just wrong.
It doesn’t phase them in the slightest.
The man in the street is too busy watching the cricket and thinking about his holidays.
Brexiters, if they even have a coherent concept of “No Deal”, assume it is an extension of “Project Fear”.
Remainers, for whom No Deal is probably equally misunderstood, assume it’s just not going to happen because someone sane will intervene.
No Deal is seriously misunderstood, and seriously underpriced.
Mental health diagnoses in the straight community - 25%
Mental health diagnoses in the LGBT+ communities - 40%+ (in some sectors, 70%)
This is the reality - your attempt to turn it into some sort of game is distasteful at best.
Primary school kids should be taught that about all the forms of relationships that we recognise as a society. It does ZERO harm and, indeed, reduces it.
Gender is a very modern concept - and you are showing your ignorance by not understanding what it means.
So stop playing and try educating yourself as to what is actually going on in society.
In other news the drummer of Jamiroquoi is playing in a Villefranche bar 20 meters from here tonight. Do I go to that or the reworking of Lion King at the open air cinema. Life's a bitch in the EU......
Peston is useful to follow because he's a well-connected idiot, which means that lots of people leak to him (or spin him a line).
And @JBriskinindyref2 what the f&&k does "let kids be kids" mean?
Yes, auto correct.
If a child is raised by a same sex couple - why the hell would they need to learn about that at School?
And as for the other kids - is there really a reason for this to be tackled head-on (phrasing)
Anyway - the argument is already over. The lessons are happening and there's no turning back now.
(Edit - he's posted, I shall respond)Would be nice if oxfordsimon could turn up to call me a bigot though.
Children who share a classroom with such a child need to be shown that a same sex relationship is valid, legal and of equal status to that of a heterosexual relationship.
But then you know this.
Or Siri unable to understand my Yorkshire accent.
Today it was all me.
And I know it's not a game. Somethings happening that I disagree with and for once I'm on the same side as the muslims.
Despite Stuart D's statements I am actually interested in politics.
I think your mental health stats are a very weak play (I know it's not a game). I have a mental health diagnosis - apparently black people (I'm more diluted) have eight times the mental health illness rate. So what?
NEW THREAD 🧵
After all, if I hold fast, I might be able to trigger a VONC in the House of Commons and foil Boris at the outset, leading to either a GONU or a GE.
Sadly, May is one of the progenitors of the Ovenden window we are currently hurling ourselves through.
Please, please, pretty please with almonds on pick Chad Sayers for the Ashes.
Not only will it mean England win handsomely, but it means Glos can sign a halfway competent bowler.
Can one imagine the furore if Labour did this in government . Of course the right wing press won’t say a thing about Bozo putting Williamson in the cabinet .
The country is truly fucked .
Though IMO buying a house is the right thing to do even if it means you can't afford a holiday for a while.