Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

What does a comparison with another state have to do with whether the historic position of the Indian state is changing in some way?

How does the head of the Indian Army commenting on the riots equal a military coup?

I believe the phrase employed at the start of this discussion was that India was 'tearing up its constitutional norms', to which you were the one who decided to bring up the matter of military takeovers. So perhaps you should ask that question of yourself since you were the only one who seems to have equated a constitutional norm allegedly being eroded - which can cover a very wide selection of actions - to a military takeover.

I don't quite follow how you can introduce the extreme interpretation via a spurious comparison, and then seek to dismiss that extreme interpretation as well.

I will be performing a server migration (and probably upgrading the site to https) over the next 48 hours. Expect downtime.

rcs1000 said:

I will be performing a server migration (and probably upgrading the site to https) over the next 48 hours. Expect downtime.

Has anyone asked Baroness Hale if this is lawful?

Oh bugger, I've got a thread about AV and Hawaiian pizzas going up in the next 48 hours, I hope Robert's server upgrade doesn't lose that thread.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

What does a comparison with another state have to do with whether the historic position of the Indian state is changing in some way?

How does the head of the Indian Army commenting on the riots equal a military coup?

I believe the phrase employed at the start of this discussion was that India was 'tearing up its constitutional norms', to which you were the one who decided to bring up the matter of military takeovers. So perhaps you should ask that question of yourself since you were the only one who seems to have equated a constitutional norm allegedly being eroded - which can cover a very wide selection of actions - to a military takeover.

I don't quite follow how you can introduce the extreme interpretation via a spurious comparison, and then seek to dismiss that extreme interpretation as well.

I believe it was the article, as you say, which claimed that "India is tearing up its constitutional norms".

Right. And you were the one who in response brought up the Pakistani militarys prediliction for taking over its country. You brought into this discussion that element, and you in response to several people have equated that phrase as if people who used it in this discussion solely mean military coups.

Let us be even blunter - you asked, several times, how the head of the Indian Army commenting on the riots equaled a military coup, and I quote that verbatim. But so far you are the only one who has made that comparison, so why are you asking that question of those who have not?

Are you doubling down on the implication that the phrase 'tearing up its constitutional norms' means being akin to a military coup? Because that is what your question suggests. Unless you are being deliberately obtuse I can only conclude you yourself actually think his actions equal a military coup, and I would think we would all agree that would be pretty silly.

You are making an absurd comparison then claiming you did not make it. I'd understand it more if you went HYUFD and just double downed.

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

What does a comparison with another state have to do with whether the historic position of the Indian state is changing in some way?

How does the head of the Indian Army commenting on the riots equal a military coup?

I believe the phrase employed at the start of this discussion was that India was 'tearing up its constitutional norms', to which you were the one who decided to bring up the matter of military takeovers. So perhaps you should ask that question of yourself since you were the only one who seems to have equated a constitutional norm allegedly being eroded - which can cover a very wide selection of actions - to a military takeover.

I don't quite follow how you can introduce the extreme interpretation via a spurious comparison, and then seek to dismiss that extreme interpretation as well.

And actually they’re constitutional laws, think. Not norms.

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

What does a comparison with another state have to do with whether the historic position of the Indian state is changing in some way?

How does the head of the Indian Army commenting on the riots equal a military coup?

I believe the phrase employed at the start of this discussion was that India was 'tearing up its constitutional norms', to which you were the one who decided to bring up the matter of military takeovers. So perhaps you should ask that question of yourself since you were the only one who seems to have equated a constitutional norm allegedly being eroded - which can cover a very wide selection of actions - to a military takeover.

I don't quite follow how you can introduce the extreme interpretation via a spurious comparison, and then seek to dismiss that extreme interpretation as well.

And actually they’re constitutional laws, think. Not norms.

If you say so, but the context of the discussion was via use of 'norms' rather than laws, since that was TSE's comment, but it would make a breach even more egregious.

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

What does a comparison with another state have to do with whether the historic position of the Indian state is changing in some way?

How does the head of the Indian Army commenting on the riots equal a military coup?

I believe the phrase employed at the start of this discussion was that India was 'tearing up its constitutional norms', to which you were the one who decided to bring up the matter of military takeovers. So perhaps you should ask that question of yourself since you were the only one who seems to have equated a constitutional norm allegedly being eroded - which can cover a very wide selection of actions - to a military takeover.

I don't quite follow how you can introduce the extreme interpretation via a spurious comparison, and then seek to dismiss that extreme interpretation as well.

And actually they’re constitutional laws, think. Not norms.

If you say so, but the context of the discussion was via use of 'norms' rather than laws, since that was TSE's comment.

True.
There again, socialism is enshrined in the constitution, which might give some here pause.

TheScreamingEagles said:

My friend who follows the far right says Britain First have a membership of between 100 to 500, the 5,000 figure is bullshit.

It is a publicity stunt by Britain First, don't fall for it.

The dissidents probably have more.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

What does a comparison with another state have to do with whether the historic position of the Indian state is changing in some way?

How does the head of the Indian Army commenting on the riots equal a military coup?

I believe the phrase employed at the start of this discussion was that India was 'tearing up its constitutional norms', to which you were the one who decided to bring up the matter of military takeovers. So perhaps you should ask that question of yourself since you were the only one who seems to have equated a constitutional norm allegedly being eroded - which can cover a very wide selection of actions - to a military takeover.

I don't quite follow how you can introduce the extreme interpretation via a spurious comparison, and then seek to dismiss that extreme interpretation as well.

I believe it was the article, as you say, which claimed that "India is tearing up its constitutional norms".

Right. And you were the one who in response brought up the Pakistani militarys prediliction for taking over its country. You brought into this discussion that element, and you in response to several people have equated that phrase as if people who used it in this discussion solely mean military coups.

Sir Mike Jackson publicly commented on the following while he was still Chief of the General Staff:

Known for speaking his mind, Jackson attracted media attention towards the end of his tenure as CGS in 2006, when he criticised Norman Kember for Kember's apparent lack of gratitude to the soldiers who freed him from Iraqi kidnappers.

And Sir Mike Jackson has something to do with Indian constitutional norms?

I'm not even an expect on Indian constitutional norms, but I think it not unreasonable that other countries positions are at least of lesser weight when assessing their alleged erosion, if not totally irrelevant. It'd be like saying someone insulting the Thai monarchy committed no crime because lese majesty is not a crime in Britain and here's an example of someone insulting the British monarchy.

Has @rcs1000 broken PB yet?

ydoethur said:

It occurred to me, after commenting above, to wonder how many DPPs have come out of office unscathed. So I ran the rule back over a few:

Current incumbent - no need to elaborate.
Ken MacDonald - repaired his image at the end with his attacks on Tony Blair’s nutty counterterrorism proposals, but was dogged by allegations of corruption throughout his tenure.
David Calvert-Smith - Damilola Taylor (nuff said)
Barbara Mills - Stephen Lawrence (also nuff said)
Allan Green - not only oversaw a series of catastrophes involving Northern Ireland, but was arrested for kerb crawling causing his wife to kill herself.

So I think either we have been quite amazingly unlucky with our choice of DPPs, or there is something in the office that makes it pretty well unmanageable even for highly intelligent, experienced and successful people.

In which case Starmer deserves some credit for being one of the least spattered with the soft and squishy.

The same logic which made some fools mistake Theresa May for a talent.

I know you`ll laugh - but should Richard Burgon be as long as 750/1 with BF for next Lab leader? For trading purposes .....?

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

What does a comparison with another state have to do with whether the historic position of the Indian state is changing in some way?

How does the head of the Indian Army commenting on the riots equal a military coup?

I believe the phrase employed at the start of this discussion was that India was 'tearing up its constitutional norms', to which you were the one who decided to bring up the matter of military takeovers. So perhaps you should ask that question of yourself since you were the only one who seems to have equated a constitutional norm allegedly being eroded - which can cover a very wide selection of actions - to a military takeover.

I don't quite follow how you can introduce the extreme interpretation via a spurious comparison, and then seek to dismiss that extreme interpretation as well.

I believe it was the article, as you say, which claimed that "India is tearing up its constitutional norms".

Right. And you were the one who in response brought up the Pakistani militarys prediliction for taking over its country. You brought into this discussion that element, and you in response to several people have equated that phrase as if people who used it in this discussion solely mean military coups.

Sir Mike Jackson publicly commented on the following while he was still Chief of the General Staff:

Known for speaking his mind, Jackson attracted media attention towards the end of his tenure as CGS in 2006, when he criticised Norman Kember for Kember's apparent lack of gratitude to the soldiers who freed him from Iraqi kidnappers.

And Sir Mike Jackson has something to do with Indian constitutional norms?

I thought the article questioned whether heads of armed forces should comment publicly on government policy, no?

But TSE's comment was about indian constitutional norms, not universal principles. And even taking your comment, which is fair enough, that doesn't explain the diversion into military coups, and then selfsame dismissal of the subject on the assumption others were meaning a military coups.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

What does a comparison with another state have to do with whether the historic position of the Indian state is changing in some way?

How does the head of the Indian Army commenting on the riots equal a military coup?

I believe the phrase employed at the start of this discussion was that India was 'tearing up its constitutional norms', to which you were the one who decided to bring up the matter of military takeovers. So perhaps you should ask that question of yourself since you were the only one who seems to have equated a constitutional norm allegedly being eroded - which can cover a very wide selection of actions - to a military takeover.

I don't quite follow how you can introduce the extreme interpretation via a spurious comparison, and then seek to dismiss that extreme interpretation as well.

And actually they’re constitutional laws, think. Not norms.

If you say so, but the context of the discussion was via use of 'norms' rather than laws, since that was TSE's comment.

True.
There again, socialism is enshrined in the constitution, which might give some here pause.

The BJP are most certainly NOT socialists! HYUFD will be along in a moment to remind everyone that Modi and co. are members of the International Democrat Union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Democrat_Union

Indeed.
The Indian constitution is a hellaciously complicated thing - so perhaps ‘norms’ is correct in practice.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Oh bugger, I've got a thread about AV and Hawaiian pizzas going up in the next 48 hours, I hope Robert's server upgrade doesn't lose that thread.

At least it’s not comparing Labour to The Last Jedi.

Although an excellent thread header could be written on those lines...

Interesting and full of great ideas that were unfairly maligned by people mentally stuck in the 70s and so rejected by an overly powerful hardline minority which exaggerates to absurdity the flaws?

Bomber craft that are too slow to evade easy destruction?
Dreadnaught firing on the planet rather than the rebel cruisers right in front of it?
Leia surviving long enough in space to enable her Mary Poppins moment?

Need I go on?

Star Wars is fantasy, not SF.

ydoethur said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Oh bugger, I've got a thread about AV and Hawaiian pizzas going up in the next 48 hours, I hope Robert's server upgrade doesn't lose that thread.

At least it’s not comparing Labour to The Last Jedi.

Although an excellent thread header could be written on those lines...

Interesting and full of great ideas that were unfairly maligned by people mentally stuck in the 70s and so rejected by an overly powerful hardline minority which exaggerates to absurdity the flaws?

Bomber craft that are too slow to evade easy destruction?
Dreadnaught firing on the planet rather than the rebel cruisers right in front of it?
Leia surviving long enough in space to enable her Mary Poppins moment?

Need I go on?

I still think my most amazing achievement was to make Sunil realise The Last Jedi was awful.

I have seen the Rise of Skywalker, I think it was better than the Last Jedi...

Well, I've just discovered two dormant (switched off but not deleted) PB servers which I've been paying for unnecessarily...

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

I will be performing a server migration (and probably upgrading the site to https) over the next 48 hours. Expect downtime.

Good luck Robert!

There's only a 50% chance that I completely fuck everything up.

The only bit that I'm slightly unsure about is how nicely Vanilla will play with https.

I'm sure docs will exist somewhere...

Yes, the https integration with the Vanilla site plugin will be the issue if there is one - but at the moment that’s broken for most of us anyway from the main site, as most browsers seem to treat the Vanilla frame as a blockable ad.

Best of luck, and shout if you need any quick and dirty research done!

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Oh bugger, I've got a thread about AV and Hawaiian pizzas going up in the next 48 hours, I hope Robert's server upgrade doesn't lose that thread.

At least it’s not comparing Labour to The Last Jedi.

Although an excellent thread header could be written on those lines...

Interesting and full of great ideas that were unfairly maligned by people mentally stuck in the 70s and so rejected by an overly powerful hardline minority which exaggerates to absurdity the flaws?

Bomber craft that are too slow to evade easy destruction?
Dreadnaught firing on the planet rather than the rebel cruisers right in front of it?
Leia surviving long enough in space to enable her Mary Poppins moment?

Need I go on?

Yes, all rather silly stuff, and more besides, the Canto bight stuff was lame for starters. The originals hold up pretty darn poorly under that kind of scrutiny too, on top of being far far worse acted. People may well think it was a bad movie, that's not wrong as that's a subjective opinion, my joke was that many of the people who get most worked up about its flaws claim to be the biggest fans of the franchise, and I think it pretty reasonable to note that political party factions tend to be full of people who claim to believe in the party above all, yet get really really angry about other factions within the same party.

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

I will be performing a server migration (and probably upgrading the site to https) over the next 48 hours. Expect downtime.

Good luck Robert!

There's only a 50% chance that I completely fuck everything up.

The only bit that I'm slightly unsure about is how nicely Vanilla will play with https.

I'm sure docs will exist somewhere...

Yes, the https integration with the Vanilla site plugin will be the issue if there is one - but at the moment that’s broken for most of us anyway from the main site, as most browsers seem to treat the Vanilla frame as a blockable ad.

Best of luck, and shout if you need any quick and dirty research done!

I was also going to update the Wordpress template to a modern one that plays nicely with various computers and devices that have been released this millennia.

Wordpress works fine for me, don’t change what works.

Nigelb said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Oh bugger, I've got a thread about AV and Hawaiian pizzas going up in the next 48 hours, I hope Robert's server upgrade doesn't lose that thread.

At least it’s not comparing Labour to The Last Jedi.

Although an excellent thread header could be written on those lines...

Interesting and full of great ideas that were unfairly maligned by people mentally stuck in the 70s and so rejected by an overly powerful hardline minority which exaggerates to absurdity the flaws?

Bomber craft that are too slow to evade easy destruction?
Dreadnaught firing on the planet rather than the rebel cruisers right in front of it?
Leia surviving long enough in space to enable her Mary Poppins moment?

Need I go on?

Star Wars is fantasy, not SF.

I've noticed my local bookstore no longer has a fantasy/science fiction section, it just calls that whole section 'science fiction', even though the vast majority of it is what would generally be termed fantasy. I speculate that because science fiction contains some more 'acclaimed' and serious works than fantasy it has managed to escape the same level of derision.

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Oh bugger, I've got a thread about AV and Hawaiian pizzas going up in the next 48 hours, I hope Robert's server upgrade doesn't lose that thread.

At least it’s not comparing Labour to The Last Jedi.

Although an excellent thread header could be written on those lines...

Interesting and full of great ideas that were unfairly maligned by people mentally stuck in the 70s and so rejected by an overly powerful hardline minority which exaggerates to absurdity the flaws?

Bomber craft that are too slow to evade easy destruction?
Dreadnaught firing on the planet rather than the rebel cruisers right in front of it?
Leia surviving long enough in space to enable her Mary Poppins moment?

Need I go on?

Yes, all rather silly stuff, and more besides, the Canto bight stuff was lame for starters. The originals hold up pretty darn poorly under that kind of scrutiny too, on top of being far far worse acted. People may well think it was a bad movie, that's not wrong as that's a subjective opinion, my joke was that many of the people who get most worked up about its flaws claim to be the biggest fans of the franchise, and I think it pretty reasonable to note that political party factions tend to be full of people who claim to believe in the party above all, yet get really really angry about other factions within the same party.

On the other hand, I loved Mark Hamill in the film, he really put on a good show, even if I (and I believe he) completely disagreed with Rian Johnson's take on the Luke Skywalker character arc.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I s509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

What does ame way?

How does thed of the Indian Army commenting on the riots equal a military coup?

I believe the phrase employed at the start of this s - to a military takeover.

I don't quite f interpretation as well.

I believe it was the article, as you say, which claimed that "India is tearing up its constitutional norms".

Right

Sir Mike Jackson publicly commented on the following while he was still Chief of the General Staff:

Known for speaking his mind, Jackson attracted media attention towards the end of his tenure as CGS in 2006, when he criticised Norman Kember for Kember's apparent lack of gratitude to the soldiers who freed him from Iraqi kidnappers.

And Sir Mike Jackson has something to do with Indian constitutional norms?

I thought the article questioned whether heads of armed forces should comment publicly on government policy, no?

meaning a military coups.

Which Indian constitutional norms are being broken?

Allet to bring it up.

To which my response is repeated:

"How does the head of the Indian Army commenting on the riots equal a military coup?"

He's not exactly saying: "OK, Narendra-ji, you've had your shot - I'm ordering our boys in khaki to suspend the Indian Constitution and take over!"

I give up, you've defeated me. Even after it's pointed out that it is about not commenting on politics not military coups, and asking whether or not that comment is a breach of norms, you still bring up this question about military coups. I can think of literally no reason why you keep on doing so when no one else has even raised that aspect and it is not even about that. You are not stupid enough to believe that only the most extreme possible action from him could be what people are talking about, rather than a principle.

I can only conclude that you know that the issue was about whether he should comment, and whether that was normal for india, and not about what his comments were, and as you don't like that you are making it about something else entirely. I'm not going to answer your question because it is mad.

So it looks from those Labour members poll numbers the only likely candidate they really dislike is Jess Phillips, ironically Phillips polls about the best of the candidates with the general public.

Seems like Jess Phillips is the Ken Clarke of this Labour leadership race

The Spanners have sacked Manuel Pellegrini.

Edit confirmation.

https://twitter.com/WestHam/status/1211028300379959297

Sunil_Prasannan said:

ydoethur said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Oh bugger, I've got a thread about AV and Hawaiian pizzas going up in the next 48 hours, I hope Robert's server upgrade doesn't lose that thread.

At least it’s not comparing Labour to The Last Jedi.

Although an excellent thread header could be written on those lines...

Interesting and full of great ideas that were unfairly maligned by people mentally stuck in the 70s and so rejected by an overly powerful hardline minority which exaggerates to absurdity the flaws?

Bomber craft that are too slow to evade easy destruction?
Dreadnaught firing on the planet rather than the rebel cruisers right in front of it?
Leia surviving long enough in space to enable her Mary Poppins moment?

Need I go on?

I still think my most amazing achievement was to make Sunil realise The Last Jedi was awful.

I have seen the Rise of Skywalker, I think it was better than the Last Jedi...

I have just seen the Rise of Skywalker too, found the first half disjointed and confusing but it made up for it with a great end sequence

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

What does a comparison with another state have to do with whether the historic position of the Indian state is changing in some way?

How does the head of the Indian Army commenting on the riots equal a military coup?

I believe the phrase employed at the start of this discussion was that India was 'tearing up its constitutional norms', to which you were the one who decided to bring up the matter of military takeovers. So perhaps you should ask that question of yourself since you were the only one who seems to have equated a constitutional norm allegedly being eroded - which can cover a very wide selection of actions - to a military takeover.

I don't quite follow how you can introduce the extreme interpretation via a spurious comparison, and then seek to dismiss that extreme interpretation as well.

And actually they’re constitutional laws, think. Not norms.

If you say so, but the context of the discussion was via use of 'norms' rather than laws, since that was TSE's comment.

True.
There again, socialism is enshrined in the constitution, which might give some here pause.

The BJP are most certainly NOT socialists! HYUFD will be along in a moment to remind everyone that Modi and co. are members of the International Democrat Union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Democrat_Union

Indeed, the Congress Party maybe, though even they are more social democratic, certainly not the right-wing BJP

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

Flavour of the times in a lot of places. I'm not one for bemoaning the state of the world generally, but I do think in some places/issues we are going backwards.

Indeed.

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1210993841936818176

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fearing-a-new-dark-age-americas-christian-conservatives-flee-the-city-for-the-countryside-bzjkd2c7k

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Spanners have sacked Manuel Pellegrini.

Edit confirmation.

https://twitter.com/WestHam/status/1211028300379959297

He's been sacked at every club he's Been at, at least he's consistent

HYUFD said:

So it looks from those Labour members poll numbers the only likely candidate they really dislike is Jess Phillips, ironically Phillips polls about the best of the candidates with the general public.

Seems like Jess Phillips is the Ken Clarke of this Labour leadership race

Indeed, Jess is hated by all the right people. It is why she is the best candidate for the job.

I am rather a Rayner fan too. Labour needs someone with a bit of fight in them, not a limp lettuce like Nandy or Starmer.

Cyclefree said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

Can you explain the Indian Citizenship Law in simple terms? I know loads of people really excited about it on both sides, but can’t work out why!

India is offering a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who face religious persecution in neighbouring states. It just so happens that these neighbouring states are all Muslim and persecute non-Muslims. It's been a long time coming tbh, someone in South Asia needed to stand up for minorities in Muslim countries and I'm glad it's India.

Ah okay, that makes more sense than any explanation I’ve heard so far. So the arguments are about who these people are, and whether or not they can be Indian.

Misleading by omission, I feel. Isn’t India also expecting all Muslims currently living in India to prove, via documentary evidence, their right to live in India? And seizing their property if they fail to provide it?

No, there are currently c.200 million Muslims living in India. Do you really think the creaking Indian bureaucracy would cope?

TheGreenMachine said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Spanners have sacked Manuel Pellegrini.

Edit confirmation.

https://twitter.com/WestHam/status/1211028300379959297

He's been sacked at every club he's Been at, at least he's consistent

It's pretty much a hazard of the job. Nearly everyone gets sacked every few seasons.

Losing to Leicester reserves at home is pretty embarrassing though. Good to see the Foxes back on form, after a few poor performances.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Foxy said:

TheGreenMachine said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Spanners have sacked Manuel Pellegrini.

Edit confirmation.

https://twitter.com/WestHam/status/1211028300379959297

He's been sacked at every club he's Been at, at least he's consistent

It's pretty much a hazard of the job. Nearly everyone gets sacked every few seasons.

Losing to Leicester reserves at home is pretty embarrassing though. Good to see the Foxes back on form, after a few poor performances.

Brendan Rodgers is the enemy of 99% of fantasy football managers though.

I think he agrees with Klopp that there is one two many Christmas fixtures, and did the obvious. He wants a strong team in the Cups.

Cyclefree said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Cyclefree said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

Can you explain the Indian Citizenship Law in simple terms? I know loads of people really excited about it on both sides, but can’t work out why!

India is offering a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who face religious persecution in neighbouring states. It just so happens that these neighbouring states are all Muslim and persecute non-Muslims. It's been a long time coming tbh, someone in South Asia needed to stand up for minorities in Muslim countries and I'm glad it's India.

Ah okay, that makes more sense than any explanation I’ve heard so far. So the arguments are about who these people are, and whether or not they can be Indian.

Misleading by omission, I feel. Isn’t India also expecting all Muslims currently living in India to prove, via documentary evidence, their right to live in India? And seizing their property if they fail to provide it?

No, there are currently c.200 million Muslims living in India. Do you really think the creaking Indian bureaucracy would cope?

Whether the bureaucracy can cope is one thing. But isn’t what I’ve written exactly what is planned by the proposed new law combined with the National Register of Citizens. And if I’ve got it wrong, perhaps you could spell out how.

The NRC (National Register of Citizens) was enacted in the eastern state Assam a few years back.

But what is being proposed nation-wide is the NPR - National Population Register, it's a glorified census.

TheGreenMachine said:

kyf_100 said:

Malmesbury said:

Just talked to a couple of hard core Momentum-ites....

Where can I get odds on J. Corbyn as next Labour leader, please?

Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien apprendre.

If Corbyn announced he was standing again he would win again.

There will be no compromises with the voters, comrade.

The bookies wouldn't offer odds or payout though.

The attitude expressed was that the people..

Had forfeited the confidence of the government party
.... would it not in that case be simpler
for the government party
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

For some reason I can see Boris Johnson praying fervently, in Latin, for this outcome

Cyclefree said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Cyclefree said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

Can you explain the Indian Citizenship Law in simple terms? I know loads of people really excited about it on both sides, but can’t work out why!

India is offering a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who face religious persecution in neighbouring states. It just so happens that these neighbouring states are all Muslim and persecute non-Muslims. It's been a long time coming tbh, someone in South Asia needed to stand up for minorities in Muslim countries and I'm glad it's India.

Ah okay, that makes more sense than any explanation I’ve heard so far. So the arguments are about who these people are, and whether or not they can be Indian.

Misleading by omission, I feel. Isn’t India also expecting all Muslims currently living in India to prove, via documentary evidence, their right to live in India? And seizing their property if they fail to provide it?

No, there are currently c.200 million Muslims living in India. Do you really think the creaking Indian bureaucracy would cope?

Whether the bureaucracy can cope is one thing. But isn’t what I’ve written exactly what is planned by the proposed new law combined with the National Register of Citizens. And if I’ve got it wrong, perhaps you could spell out how.

This presents a different picture to Sunil:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/indian-democracy-fighting-back/604129/
Clearly it is written from a very different point of view, but I don’t think it sheer invention.

In any event, feelings are dangerously high on both sides.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Quiet on here! Has @rcs1000 broken PB??

Not yet

ydoethur said:

It occurred to me, after commenting above, to wonder how many DPPs have come out of office unscathed. So I ran the rule back over a few:

Current incumbent - no need to elaborate.
Ken MacDonald - repaired his image at the end with his attacks on Tony Blair’s nutty counterterrorism proposals, but was dogged by allegations of corruption throughout his tenure.
David Calvert-Smith - Damilola Taylor (nuff said)
Barbara Mills - Stephen Lawrence (also nuff said)
Allan Green - not only oversaw a series of catastrophes involving Northern Ireland, but was arrested for kerb crawling causing his wife to kill herself.

So I think either we have been quite amazingly unlucky with our choice of DPPs, or there is something in the office that makes it pretty well unmanageable even for highly intelligent, experienced and successful people.

In which case Starmer deserves some credit for being one of the least spattered with the soft and squishy.

Weren’t Lawrence and Taylor failures of the police rather than the CPS?

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see this is the way to smear Mayor Pete.

https://twitter.com/twlldun/status/1210990781391089664

The answer to Jubal’s question is “no”

HIV is a chronic condition that can be easily controlled with a widely available drug regime

It is no worse than diabetes (and arguably it is a lower risk having someone who is HIV positive as President vs having a diabetic)

Of course.

But the other reply (as I suggested earlier) is to ask if the percentage of highly educated, Christian, monogamous ex Marines who are HIV positive is smaller than the percentage of Jubals who have relations with farm animals...

IOW, it’s a poorly disguised slur, and should be treated as such.

Nigelb said:

Cyclefree said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Cyclefree said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

Can you explain the Indian Citizenship Law in simple terms? I know loads of people really excited about it on both sides, but can’t work out why!

India is offering a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who face religious persecution in neighbouring states. It just so happens that these neighbouring states are all Muslim and persecute non-Muslims. It's been a long time coming tbh, someone in South Asia needed to stand up for minorities in Muslim countries and I'm glad it's India.

Ah okay, that makes more sense than any explanation I’ve heard so far. So the arguments are about who these people are, and whether or not they can be Indian.

Misleading by omission, I feel. Isn’t India also expecting all Muslims currently living in India to prove, via documentary evidence, their right to live in India? And seizing their property if they fail to provide it?

No, there are currently c.200 million Muslims living in India. Do you really think the creaking Indian bureaucracy would cope?

Whether the bureaucracy can cope is one thing. But isn’t what I’ve written exactly what is planned by the proposed new law combined with the National Register of Citizens. And if I’ve got it wrong, perhaps you could spell out how.

This presents a different picture to Sunil:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/indian-democracy-fighting-back/604129/
Clearly it is written from a very different point of view, but I don’t think it sheer invention.

In any event, feelings are dangerously high on both sides.

The NRC (National Register of Citizens) was enacted in the eastern state of Assam a few years back.

But what is being proposed nation-wide is the NPR - National Population Register, it's a glorified census.

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see this is the way to smear Mayor Pete.

https://twitter.com/twlldun/status/1210990781391089664

The answer to Jubal’s question is “no”

HIV is a chronic condition that can be easily controlled with a widely available drug regime

It is no worse than diabetes (and arguably it is a lower risk having someone who is HIV positive as President vs having a diabetic)

The other strange thing is that the stats it’s based on quote ‘recent data’ but the article is dated 2010.

Typically nasty right-wing slur.

Malmesbury said:

I have heard it stated that the underlying fear - as opposed to visions of India expelling all the Muslims etc - is that Modi is trying to create "ground truth" in states bordering Pakistan and Bangladesh. Not surprisingly these areas have large Muslim populations... which they think he is trying to dilute by encouraging mass migration of non-Muslims.

Any thoughts?

I am, as you might guess, no expert on India. For all I know Sunil could be entirely right.

But clearly people are, rightly or wrongly, deeply worried:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/12/09/blood-and-soil-in-narendra-modis-india

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/indias-citizenship-emergency

Charles said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Oh bugger, I've got a thread about AV and Hawaiian pizzas going up in the next 48 hours, I hope Robert's server upgrade doesn't lose that thread.

At least it’s not comparing Labour to The Last Jedi.

Although an excellent thread header could be written on those lines...

Interesting and full of great ideas that were unfairly maligned by people mentally stuck in the 70s and so rejected by an overly powerful hardline minority which exaggerates to absurdity the flaws?

Bomber craft that are too slow to evade easy destruction?
Dreadnaught firing on the planet rather than the rebel cruisers right in front of it?
Leia surviving long enough in space to enable her Mary Poppins moment?

Need I go on?

Star Wars is fantasy, not SF.

I've noticed my local bookstore no longer has a fantasy/science fiction section, it just calls that whole section 'science fiction', even though the vast majority of it is what would generally be termed fantasy. I speculate that because science fiction contains some more 'acclaimed' and serious works than fantasy it has managed to escape the same level of derision.

Or there might be some misunderstanding about what “fantasy” involves for some clientele?

That could be an entirely different section....

Cyclefree said:

ydoethur said:

It occurred to me, after commenting above, to wonder how many DPPs have come out of office unscathed. So I ran the rule back over a few:

Current incumbent - no need to elaborate.
Ken MacDonald - repaired his image at the end with his attacks on Tony Blair’s nutty counterterrorism proposals, but was dogged by allegations of corruption throughout his tenure.
David Calvert-Smith - Damilola Taylor (nuff said)
Barbara Mills - Stephen Lawrence (also nuff said)
Allan Green - not only oversaw a series of catastrophes involving Northern Ireland, but was arrested for kerb crawling causing his wife to kill herself.

So I think either we have been quite amazingly unlucky with our choice of DPPs, or there is something in the office that makes it pretty well unmanageable even for highly intelligent, experienced and successful people.

In which case Starmer deserves some credit for being one of the least spattered with the soft and squishy.

Wasn’t there that case of a police critic, who was on some supervisory committee, who was pursued by the police who used pictures of some private - if pretty esoteric - sexual activity to prosecute him. He was acquitted but ended up making a new life elsewhere? Wasn’t Starmer the DPP who authorised the prosecution?

As well as of the journalists in Operation Elveden?

Yes - he was on the COLP police authority and was very critical of them. Embarrassingly I’ve forgotten his name despite being a fellow Warden of St Dunstan for many years.

He ended up innocent, bankrupted and broken by the DPP

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

Cyclefree said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Cyclefree said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

Can you explain the Indian Citizenship Law in simple terms? I know loads of people really excited about it on both sides, but can’t work out why!

India is offering a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who face religious persecution in neighbouring states. It just so happens that these neighbouring states are all Muslim and persecute non-Muslims. It's been a long time coming tbh, someone in South Asia needed to stand up for minorities in Muslim countries and I'm glad it's India.

Ah okay, that makes more sense than any explanation I’ve heard so far. So the arguments are about who these people are, and whether or not they can be Indian.

Misleading by omission, I feel. Isn’t India also expecting all Muslims currently living in India to prove, via documentary evidence, their right to live in India? And seizing their property if they fail to provide it?

No, there are currently c.200 million Muslims living in India. Do you really think the creaking Indian bureaucracy would cope?

Whether the bureaucracy can cope is one thing. But isn’t what I’ve written exactly what is planned by the proposed new law combined with the National Register of Citizens. And if I’ve got it wrong, perhaps you could spell out how.

This presents a different picture to Sunil:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/indian-democracy-fighting-back/604129/
Clearly it is written from a very different point of view, but I don’t think it sheer invention.

In any event, feelings are dangerously high on both sides.

I have heard it stated that the underlying fear - as opposed to visions of India expelling all the Muslims etc - is that Modi is trying to create "ground truth" in states bordering Pakistan and Bangladesh. Not surprisingly these areas have large Muslim populations... which they think he is trying to dilute by encouraging mass migration of non-Muslims.

Any thoughts?

Not necessarily.

Kerala, in the deep south (nowhere near Pakistan or Bangladesh), has a 25% Muslim population. The Lakshadweep Islands nearby are almost 100% Muslim.

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

So it looks from those Labour members poll numbers the only likely candidate they really dislike is Jess Phillips, ironically Phillips polls about the best of the candidates with the general public.

Seems like Jess Phillips is the Ken Clarke of this Labour leadership race

Indeed, Jess is hated by all the right people. It is why she is the best candidate for the job.

I am rather a Rayner fan too. Labour needs someone with a bit of fight in them, not a limp lettuce like Nandy or Starmer.

A RBL win probably means the end of the Labour party as one of the two main parties. So no pressure Labour members.

Malmesbury said:

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see this is the way to smear Mayor Pete.

https://twitter.com/twlldun/status/1210990781391089664

The answer to Jubal’s question is “no”

HIV is a chronic condition that can be easily controlled with a widely available drug regime

It is no worse than diabetes (and arguably it is a lower risk having someone who is HIV positive as President vs having a diabetic)

I knew that the newest drug regimes were a massive improvement on the early treatments - it is (excellent) news to me that they are that good.

Basically it has moved from “this is a sentence of death” to “this is going to be a pain in the butt for the rest of your life” (no pun intended)

Nigelb said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Oh bugger, I've got a thread about AV and Hawaiian pizzas going up in the next 48 hours, I hope Robert's server upgrade doesn't lose that thread.

At least it’s not comparing Labour to The Last Jedi.

Although an excellent thread header could be written on those lines...

Interesting and full of great ideas that were unfairly maligned by people mentally stuck in the 70s and so rejected by an overly powerful hardline minority which exaggerates to absurdity the flaws?

Bomber craft that are too slow to evade easy destruction?
Dreadnaught firing on the planet rather than the rebel cruisers right in front of it?
Leia surviving long enough in space to enable her Mary Poppins moment?

Need I go on?

Star Wars is fantasy, not SF.

I've noticed my local bookstore no longer has a fantasy/science fiction section, it just calls that whole section 'science fiction', even though the vast majority of it is what would generally be termed fantasy. I speculate that because science fiction contains some more 'acclaimed' and serious works than fantasy it has managed to escape the same level of derision.

Or there might be some misunderstanding about what “fantasy” involves for some clientele?

That could be an entirely different section....

You wouldn’t want them mixing with spotty teenagers in the SF section...

Charles said:

Benpointer said:

Re Starmer Are we going to hear from @Charles’s mum anytime soon?

She won’t blooming well tell me!

Aargh! Mothers eh, who’d ‘ave ‘em?