Wow, just in. Email offer from the Speccy. £12 for 12 weeks of the the mag and get a free bottle of Johnnie Walker Black Label worth £30. Which I like and would drink. So that's paying me an effective hard cash £18 to read the thoughts of Toby Young & Co every week for the next 3 months. It's a no brainer! Not doing it.
But you don't need to read it - my paper recycling bin is by the front door, to save £18 I would happily remove the plastic, throw the magazine straight in the recycling and bin the plastic.
Johnnie Walker Black though - I would need Blue Label or a decent single malt as a minimum.
Ah well Black is much better than my norm in Scotch. Good point, though, about not having to read it. Trouble is, I fear would. I'd feel pressured if it were there, pristine and staring up at me.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
Strange. I've read a lot of Marx, and I don't recall him ever commenting on police brutality in the USA.
Not strange at all, the fact that he didn't comment on a matter doesn't prevent people who follow his theories applying them to it
The assertion that the protests are organised or coopted by committed marxists may or may not be bollocks, but whether Marx said anything about that kind of situation is hardly relevant to it being bollocks I'd have thought. Surely the whole point of philosophers, prophets and political theorists is that they ideas can have applicability to people and places far removed from the mere circumstances of their time, and serve as inspiration to others?
I agree with your general point, but not in this specific instance. If BLM were marxist (which I don't believe it is) it's not really an application of Marx himself, but of a range of 20th C polemicists who claim (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly) that their theorising is an update of Marx himself. I'm pretty sure that if we could bring back Marx for a chat, he would disown the ideas of many of those who claim to be influenced by him.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
So you'd be less uncomfortable with a mass protest against racism if Nick Clegg had sent out the flyers?
Probably would, yes
Right. I'll DM him and get back to you. And if he's too busy with Facebook we'll try Sir Vince Cable. Either way - mass demo against racism organized by a Liberal Democrat here we come!
Good work, you might even get both Cable and Trump on board if you call it Orange Lives Matter.
Am I correct in seeing a fair number of Tier 3 places with an R below 1. And quite a few Tier 2 with R above 1?
When looking at R at the local level, you have to make allowances for actual case levels. You can get some serious distortions with a a small cluster in a place with normally no cases.
R is about the direction of travel - so you can have an R below 1, cases falling, from a previously high level. So you would want to continue severe restrictions until the case level is much lower.
Read in conjunction with the cases scaled to 100k population. And the overall case level. And then read some local information.
Thanks for that. I do understand that. My observation was merely that I do see several London boroughs and a few in Surrey and East Anglia with R above 1. Even from a lower starting level.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
In the 1960s you had counter-protesters in the Deep South with "Race Mixing = Communism" placards. These arguments are not new.
People having said something in the Deep South in the middle of the last century doesn't disqualify it from being correct to say it now in England (not Race mixing = communism obviously)
But this is a specific subject. And have you seen my post just now where I describe George Wallace as a kind of Deep South "Enoch was right" Powell?
George Wallace desired segregation, Enoch Powell feared it
What he feared was Britain's identity being fatally compromised by non-white immigration. And you think he was right, I believe?
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
Strange. I've read a lot of Marx, and I don't recall him ever commenting on police brutality in the USA.
Not strange at all, the fact that he didn't comment on a matter doesn't prevent people who follow his theories applying them to it
The assertion that the protests are organised or coopted by committed marxists may or may not be bollocks, but whether Marx said anything about that kind of situation is hardly relevant to it being bollocks I'd have thought. Surely the whole point of philosophers, prophets and political theorists is that they ideas can have applicability to people and places far removed from the mere circumstances of their time, and serve as inspiration to others?
I agree with your general point, but not in this specific instance. If BLM were marxist (which I don't believe it is) it's not really an application of Marx himself, but of a range of 20th C polemicists who claim (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly) that their theorising is an update of Marx himself. I'm pretty sure that if we could bring back Marx for a chat, he would disown the ideas of many of those who claim to be influenced by him.
Yes but I don't see the relevance of that as it's them being criticised, not him. Perhaps other marxists could complain that other self proclaimed marxists (if that is what is happening) are not true marxists, but like other essentially religious disputes what they call themselves matters. If they call themselves that, it's not hugely unfair to call them that. If marxists are upset then 'so called' could be added to it.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
In the 1960s you had counter-protesters in the Deep South with "Race Mixing = Communism" placards. These arguments are not new.
People having said something in the Deep South in the middle of the last century doesn't disqualify it from being correct to say it now in England (not Race mixing = communism obviously)
But this is a specific subject. And have you seen my post just now where I describe George Wallace as a kind of Deep South "Enoch was right" Powell?
George Wallace desired segregation, Enoch Powell feared it
What he feared was Britain's identity being fatally compromised by non-white immigration. And you think he was right, I believe?
That wasn't what he feared. What he feared was that mass immigration would lead to the type of fractured society that BLM say the UK has become
Nothing barking about it, manipulative and deceitful absolutely but he is not mad, just bad.
The damage to US democracy being done by one man - Donald J Trump - is extraordinary and scary.
I fervently hope - although I'm not optimistic - that the incoming administration is able to find a bipartisan way to increase trust in elections and the democratic process. Because right now, Republicans see working with Democrats as electoral suicide. And therefore would rather cry foul from the sidelines.
The damage to US democracy being done by one man - Donald J Trump - is extraordinary and scary.
I fervently hope - although I'm not optimistic - that the incoming administration is able to find a bipartisan way to increase trust in elections and the democratic process. Because right now, Republicans see working with Democrats as electoral suicide. And therefore would rather cry foul from the sidelines.
One might hope that them losing in court, badly, repeatedly, might give some cover for the "President was a raving lunatic" narrative to take...
Some of these cases surely have to breach some kind of ethical guidelines? It seems over and over very unspecific complaints are made without anything to back it up and thus the lawyers have to know it is doomed, purely for the purpose of allowing the president to say that it is being fought in court.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
Strange. I've read a lot of Marx, and I don't recall him ever commenting on police brutality in the USA.
Not strange at all, the fact that he didn't comment on a matter doesn't prevent people who follow his theories applying them to it
The assertion that the protests are organised or coopted by committed marxists may or may not be bollocks, but whether Marx said anything about that kind of situation is hardly relevant to it being bollocks I'd have thought. Surely the whole point of philosophers, prophets and political theorists is that they ideas can have applicability to people and places far removed from the mere circumstances of their time, and serve as inspiration to others?
Yes. It was an attempt at a devastatingly witty one liner, but hadn't been thought through
Some of these cases surely have to breach some kind of ethical guidelines? It seems over and over very unspecific complaints are made without anything to back it up and thus the lawyers have to know it is doomed, purely for the purpose of allowing the president to say that it is being fought in court.
I think someone said they had already made some kind of move in that direction against Giuliani. I don't remember the specifics
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
In the 1960s you had counter-protesters in the Deep South with "Race Mixing = Communism" placards. These arguments are not new.
People having said something in the Deep South in the middle of the last century doesn't disqualify it from being correct to say it now in England (not Race mixing = communism obviously)
But this is a specific subject. And have you seen my post just now where I describe George Wallace as a kind of Deep South "Enoch was right" Powell?
George Wallace desired segregation, Enoch Powell feared it
What he feared was Britain's identity being fatally compromised by non-white immigration. And you think he was right, I believe?
That wasn't what he feared. What he feared was that mass immigration would lead to the type of fractured society that BLM say the UK has become
Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
In the 1960s you had counter-protesters in the Deep South with "Race Mixing = Communism" placards. These arguments are not new.
People having said something in the Deep South in the middle of the last century doesn't disqualify it from being correct to say it now in England (not Race mixing = communism obviously)
But this is a specific subject. And have you seen my post just now where I describe George Wallace as a kind of Deep South "Enoch was right" Powell?
George Wallace desired segregation, Enoch Powell feared it
What he feared was Britain's identity being fatally compromised by non-white immigration. And you think he was right, I believe?
That wasn't what he feared. What he feared was that mass immigration would lead to the type of fractured society that BLM say the UK has become
In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine. I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:
"Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder."
That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of theAtlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, iscoming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
Those extremists seek to coopt any other movements and attention, so I hope they get short shrift from those only concerned about the main thrust of protests.
Ok. But it takes a great deal of energy and commitment to organize and sustain a large anti-racism protest movement. If you will only support one where none of the prime movers are left activists that's the same in practice as never being able to support one.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
Those extremists seek to coopt any other movements and attention, so I hope they get short shrift from those only concerned about the main thrust of protests.
Ok. But it takes a great deal of energy and commitment to organize and sustain a large anti-racism protest movement. If you will only support one where none of the prime movers are left activists that's the same in practice as never being able to support one.
I wasn't suggesting that. Just that it must be annoying for supporters of any cause when the regular extremist agitators attach themselves to it to jump on a bandwagon and only make it easier to dismiss.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
Strange. I've read a lot of Marx, and I don't recall him ever commenting on police brutality in the USA.
Not strange at all, the fact that he didn't comment on a matter doesn't prevent people who follow his theories applying them to it
The assertion that the protests are organised or coopted by committed marxists may or may not be bollocks, but whether Marx said anything about that kind of situation is hardly relevant to it being bollocks I'd have thought. Surely the whole point of philosophers, prophets and political theorists is that they ideas can have applicability to people and places far removed from the mere circumstances of their time, and serve as inspiration to others?
I agree with your general point, but not in this specific instance. If BLM were marxist (which I don't believe it is) it's not really an application of Marx himself, but of a range of 20th C polemicists who claim (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly) that their theorising is an update of Marx himself. I'm pretty sure that if we could bring back Marx for a chat, he would disown the ideas of many of those who claim to be influenced by him.
Yes but I don't see the relevance of that as it's them being criticised, not him. Perhaps other marxists could complain that other self proclaimed marxists (if that is what is happening) are not true marxists, but like other essentially religious disputes what they call themselves matters. If they call themselves that, it's not hugely unfair to call them that. If marxists are upset then 'so called' could be added to it.
In a previous life I used to teach this stuff. If I had a pound for every time a student wrote: "According to Marx, the (fill in here with anything, but as an example....) Brixton riots were caused by......", I'd be a rich man. Rather than "so-called", we usually ended up with "neo-marxists". Anyway the key figure in all this culture stuff, rather than class stuff, is Gramsci rather than Marx - but even he has not commented on anything since 1937.
Am I correct in seeing a fair number of Tier 3 places with an R below 1. And quite a few Tier 2 with R above 1?
When looking at R at the local level, you have to make allowances for actual case levels. You can get some serious distortions with a a small cluster in a place with normally no cases.
R is about the direction of travel - so you can have an R below 1, cases falling, from a previously high level. So you would want to continue severe restrictions until the case level is much lower.
Read in conjunction with the cases scaled to 100k population. And the overall case level. And then read some local information.
Thanks for that. I do understand that. My observation was merely that I do see several London boroughs and a few in Surrey and East Anglia with R above 1. Even from a lower starting level.
From a quick scan it looks like a fair bit of weight is being put on the cases scaled to x for each area.
Its's rather annoying that there isn't a data mapping available of Lower Tier Local Authorities to Tiers....
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
Strange. I've read a lot of Marx, and I don't recall him ever commenting on police brutality in the USA.
Not strange at all, the fact that he didn't comment on a matter doesn't prevent people who follow his theories applying them to it
The assertion that the protests are organised or coopted by committed marxists may or may not be bollocks, but whether Marx said anything about that kind of situation is hardly relevant to it being bollocks I'd have thought. Surely the whole point of philosophers, prophets and political theorists is that they ideas can have applicability to people and places far removed from the mere circumstances of their time, and serve as inspiration to others?
I agree with your general point, but not in this specific instance. If BLM were marxist (which I don't believe it is) it's not really an application of Marx himself, but of a range of 20th C polemicists who claim (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly) that their theorising is an update of Marx himself. I'm pretty sure that if we could bring back Marx for a chat, he would disown the ideas of many of those who claim to be influenced by him.
Yes but I don't see the relevance of that as it's them being criticised, not him. Perhaps other marxists could complain that other self proclaimed marxists (if that is what is happening) are not true marxists, but like other essentially religious disputes what they call themselves matters. If they call themselves that, it's not hugely unfair to call them that. If marxists are upset then 'so called' could be added to it.
In a previous life I used to teach this stuff. If I had a pound for every time a student wrote: "According to Marx, the (fill in here with anything, but as an example....) Brixton riots were caused by......", I'd be a rich man. Rather than "so-called", we usually ended up with "neo-marxists". Anyway the key figure in all this culture stuff, rather than class stuff, is Gramsci rather than Marx - but even he has not commented on anything since 1937.
Very versatile word, neo. Neo imperialism is another of course.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
Strange. I've read a lot of Marx, and I don't recall him ever commenting on police brutality in the USA.
Not strange at all, the fact that he didn't comment on a matter doesn't prevent people who follow his theories applying them to it
The assertion that the protests are organised or coopted by committed marxists may or may not be bollocks, but whether Marx said anything about that kind of situation is hardly relevant to it being bollocks I'd have thought. Surely the whole point of philosophers, prophets and political theorists is that they ideas can have applicability to people and places far removed from the mere circumstances of their time, and serve as inspiration to others?
I agree with your general point, but not in this specific instance. If BLM were marxist (which I don't believe it is) it's not really an application of Marx himself, but of a range of 20th C polemicists who claim (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly) that their theorising is an update of Marx himself. I'm pretty sure that if we could bring back Marx for a chat, he would disown the ideas of many of those who claim to be influenced by him.
Yes but I don't see the relevance of that as it's them being criticised, not him. Perhaps other marxists could complain that other self proclaimed marxists (if that is what is happening) are not true marxists, but like other essentially religious disputes what they call themselves matters. If they call themselves that, it's not hugely unfair to call them that. If marxists are upset then 'so called' could be added to it.
In a previous life I used to teach this stuff. If I had a pound for every time a student wrote: "According to Marx, the (fill in here with anything, but as an example....) Brixton riots were caused by......", I'd be a rich man. Rather than "so-called", we usually ended up with "neo-marxists". Anyway the key figure in all this culture stuff, rather than class stuff, is Gramsci rather than Marx - but even he has not commented on anything since 1937.
I have a feeling many more teachers than usual are shortly going to be saying that stuff about ‘a previous life.’
Opinion polling on the US civil rights movement in the 1960s was very similar. Most respondents thought that demonstrations, boycotts and sit-ins did more harm than good and that they were organised by communists. The judgement of history has been somewhat different. I support BLM.
It's interesting polling, and of course there are nuances to it you haven't pointed out. For example in that same poll you linked to 71% thought MLK was moving at the right speed on equal rights, 94% rated MLK's role as positive in civil rights, 48% sided with the civil rights groups over the state of Alabama (21%) in that particular dispute, 72% said they would support a peaceful parade, march or picketing.
What they objected to was mass demonstrations and, in particular, violent riots, where 87% said it hurt the cause. We tend to remember MLK because of his speeches, and in particular because he was also tragically assassinated, but we tend to forget there was a lot of other disorder and violence that came with it at the time. And, don't forget, whilst there were some civil rights reforms in the 60s it clearly wasn't enough as recent decades, and this year in particular, has demonstrated, so who's to say they were wrong?
We find similar results today: people support marches, protests and racial equality but they don't support disorder; statues being pulled down, violence or flipping racialised language on its head.
I support equality for black people, but I don't support all of the political objectives of the BLM movement. In fact, I object to BLM spokesman who claim that any criticism of their movement is an objection to challenging racism - it's highly disingenuous and I think they know it very well; they are just using it as a shield to advance their broader politics with cover, and that's what may prove to be the divisive and counterproductive bit in the end.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
Those extremists seek to coopt any other movements and attention, so I hope they get short shrift from those only concerned about the main thrust of protests.
Ok. But it takes a great deal of energy and commitment to organize and sustain a large anti-racism protest movement. If you will only support one where none of the prime movers are left activists that's the same in practice as never being able to support one.
I wasn't suggesting that. Just that it must be annoying for supporters of any cause when the regular extremist agitators attach themselves to it to jump on a bandwagon and only make it easier to dismiss.
When I was helping to run the student union, one of the jobs was to try and make demos safe for the students.
The SWP/Black Block types would complain that instead of allowing them to mingle in the crowd, and let them cause trouble inside the demo, they would get separated out.
With no-one to hide behind, their boldness in attacking the police suffered.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
Strange. I've read a lot of Marx, and I don't recall him ever commenting on police brutality in the USA.
Not strange at all, the fact that he didn't comment on a matter doesn't prevent people who follow his theories applying them to it
The assertion that the protests are organised or coopted by committed marxists may or may not be bollocks, but whether Marx said anything about that kind of situation is hardly relevant to it being bollocks I'd have thought. Surely the whole point of philosophers, prophets and political theorists is that they ideas can have applicability to people and places far removed from the mere circumstances of their time, and serve as inspiration to others?
I agree with your general point, but not in this specific instance. If BLM were marxist (which I don't believe it is) it's not really an application of Marx himself, but of a range of 20th C polemicists who claim (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly) that their theorising is an update of Marx himself. I'm pretty sure that if we could bring back Marx for a chat, he would disown the ideas of many of those who claim to be influenced by him.
Yes but I don't see the relevance of that as it's them being criticised, not him. Perhaps other marxists could complain that other self proclaimed marxists (if that is what is happening) are not true marxists, but like other essentially religious disputes what they call themselves matters. If they call themselves that, it's not hugely unfair to call them that. If marxists are upset then 'so called' could be added to it.
In a previous life I used to teach this stuff. If I had a pound for every time a student wrote: "According to Marx, the (fill in here with anything, but as an example....) Brixton riots were caused by......", I'd be a rich man. Rather than "so-called", we usually ended up with "neo-marxists". Anyway the key figure in all this culture stuff, rather than class stuff, is Gramsci rather than Marx - but even he has not commented on anything since 1937.
I have a feeling many more teachers than usual are shortly going to be saying that stuff about ‘a previous life.’
Metaphorically or literally? (Having "temporarily" pinged out of the classroom a while back, I'm definitely delaying any return as much as possible...)
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
Strange. I've read a lot of Marx, and I don't recall him ever commenting on police brutality in the USA.
Not strange at all, the fact that he didn't comment on a matter doesn't prevent people who follow his theories applying them to it
The assertion that the protests are organised or coopted by committed marxists may or may not be bollocks, but whether Marx said anything about that kind of situation is hardly relevant to it being bollocks I'd have thought. Surely the whole point of philosophers, prophets and political theorists is that they ideas can have applicability to people and places far removed from the mere circumstances of their time, and serve as inspiration to others?
I agree with your general point, but not in this specific instance. If BLM were marxist (which I don't believe it is) it's not really an application of Marx himself, but of a range of 20th C polemicists who claim (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly) that their theorising is an update of Marx himself. I'm pretty sure that if we could bring back Marx for a chat, he would disown the ideas of many of those who claim to be influenced by him.
Yes but I don't see the relevance of that as it's them being criticised, not him. Perhaps other marxists could complain that other self proclaimed marxists (if that is what is happening) are not true marxists, but like other essentially religious disputes what they call themselves matters. If they call themselves that, it's not hugely unfair to call them that. If marxists are upset then 'so called' could be added to it.
In a previous life I used to teach this stuff. If I had a pound for every time a student wrote: "According to Marx, the (fill in here with anything, but as an example....) Brixton riots were caused by......", I'd be a rich man. Rather than "so-called", we usually ended up with "neo-marxists". Anyway the key figure in all this culture stuff, rather than class stuff, is Gramsci rather than Marx - but even he has not commented on anything since 1937.
I have a feeling many more teachers than usual are shortly going to be saying that stuff about ‘a previous life.’
Metaphorically or literally? (Having "temporarily" pinged out of the classroom a while back, I'm definitely delaying any return as much as possible...)
Metaphorically.
One thing those heaping mindless abuse on teachers for urging that we close schools to stop the relentless rise of Covid within them seem to forget is that teachers don’t have to work in schools.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
Strange. I've read a lot of Marx, and I don't recall him ever commenting on police brutality in the USA.
Not strange at all, the fact that he didn't comment on a matter doesn't prevent people who follow his theories applying them to it
The assertion that the protests are organised or coopted by committed marxists may or may not be bollocks, but whether Marx said anything about that kind of situation is hardly relevant to it being bollocks I'd have thought. Surely the whole point of philosophers, prophets and political theorists is that they ideas can have applicability to people and places far removed from the mere circumstances of their time, and serve as inspiration to others?
I agree with your general point, but not in this specific instance. If BLM were marxist (which I don't believe it is) it's not really an application of Marx himself, but of a range of 20th C polemicists who claim (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly) that their theorising is an update of Marx himself. I'm pretty sure that if we could bring back Marx for a chat, he would disown the ideas of many of those who claim to be influenced by him.
Yes but I don't see the relevance of that as it's them being criticised, not him. Perhaps other marxists could complain that other self proclaimed marxists (if that is what is happening) are not true marxists, but like other essentially religious disputes what they call themselves matters. If they call themselves that, it's not hugely unfair to call them that. If marxists are upset then 'so called' could be added to it.
In a previous life I used to teach this stuff. If I had a pound for every time a student wrote: "According to Marx, the (fill in here with anything, but as an example....) Brixton riots were caused by......", I'd be a rich man. Rather than "so-called", we usually ended up with "neo-marxists". Anyway the key figure in all this culture stuff, rather than class stuff, is Gramsci rather than Marx - but even he has not commented on anything since 1937.
I have a feeling many more teachers than usual are shortly going to be saying that stuff about ‘a previous life.’
I stopped teaching in my 40s. You are the last person I would tell what I went on to do subsequently!
Oisin Murphy, Britain’s champion jockey, has been given a three-month suspension following his positive test for cocaine after riding in France in July, three months shorter than bans served by Frankie Dettori and Kieren Fallon for the same offence in the past, after telling a disciplinary hearing that the positive was due to “environmental contamination”, apparently via sexual contact with a user of the Class A drug.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
Strange. I've read a lot of Marx, and I don't recall him ever commenting on police brutality in the USA.
Not strange at all, the fact that he didn't comment on a matter doesn't prevent people who follow his theories applying them to it
The assertion that the protests are organised or coopted by committed marxists may or may not be bollocks, but whether Marx said anything about that kind of situation is hardly relevant to it being bollocks I'd have thought. Surely the whole point of philosophers, prophets and political theorists is that they ideas can have applicability to people and places far removed from the mere circumstances of their time, and serve as inspiration to others?
I agree with your general point, but not in this specific instance. If BLM were marxist (which I don't believe it is) it's not really an application of Marx himself, but of a range of 20th C polemicists who claim (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly) that their theorising is an update of Marx himself. I'm pretty sure that if we could bring back Marx for a chat, he would disown the ideas of many of those who claim to be influenced by him.
Yes but I don't see the relevance of that as it's them being criticised, not him. Perhaps other marxists could complain that other self proclaimed marxists (if that is what is happening) are not true marxists, but like other essentially religious disputes what they call themselves matters. If they call themselves that, it's not hugely unfair to call them that. If marxists are upset then 'so called' could be added to it.
In a previous life I used to teach this stuff. If I had a pound for every time a student wrote: "According to Marx, the (fill in here with anything, but as an example....) Brixton riots were caused by......", I'd be a rich man. Rather than "so-called", we usually ended up with "neo-marxists". Anyway the key figure in all this culture stuff, rather than class stuff, is Gramsci rather than Marx - but even he has not commented on anything since 1937.
I have a feeling many more teachers than usual are shortly going to be saying that stuff about ‘a previous life.’
I stopped teaching in my 40s. You are the last person I would tell what I went on to do subsequently!
Quite right. You should keep your misguided culinary choices to yourself.
Nothing barking about it, manipulative and deceitful absolutely but he is not mad, just bad.
The damage to US democracy being done by one man - Donald J Trump - is extraordinary and scary.
I fervently hope - although I'm not optimistic - that the incoming administration is able to find a bipartisan way to increase trust in elections and the democratic process. Because right now, Republicans see working with Democrats as electoral suicide. And therefore would rather cry foul from the sidelines.
Choosing national suicide over electoral suicide is not a path for long term winners.
Downing Street said there were 'no plans' to have the Union flag printed on the Oxford University and AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine, following reports that Number 10's 'Union Unit' had asked for the British flag to appear on packaging.
The Prime Minister's official spokesman told reporters: 'There are no plans for the Union Jack to be on doses.
And of course we will more than likely see US, German and EU flags on the packaging of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but people won't get upset by that.
Doesn't mean it was fake news - just that someone had a bright idea and put it out and someone else disagreed.
Of course some people are allergic to food colourings.
Though someone having a bright idea and it being knocked back isn't the same as number 10 "demanded" that it happens which is how it was spun before.
Given our responsibility to both backers and layers to ensure that the markets are settled correctly and given the unprecedented amount of money that has been traded on these markets, we have sought advice from leading U.S. lawyers to determine the appropriate time to settle the markets.
Leading US lawyers? They've been asking Rudi Giuliani and Lionel Hutz haven't they?
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
In the 1960s you had counter-protesters in the Deep South with "Race Mixing = Communism" placards. These arguments are not new.
People having said something in the Deep South in the middle of the last century doesn't disqualify it from being correct to say it now in England (not Race mixing = communism obviously)
But this is a specific subject. And have you seen my post just now where I describe George Wallace as a kind of Deep South "Enoch was right" Powell?
George Wallace desired segregation, Enoch Powell feared it
What he feared was Britain's identity being fatally compromised by non-white immigration. And you think he was right, I believe?
That wasn't what he feared. What he feared was that mass immigration would lead to the type of fractured society that BLM say the UK has become
That's the same thing! So, yes, he saw Britain as a having a coherent and stable White identity and feared that if we accepted more than a very modest amount of non-White immigration we (and they) would be unable to adapt and we would lose something precious. This is what he feared and this is what you believe he was right to fear - because iyo it's coming to pass. We have it nailed now, I sense.
Opinion polling on the US civil rights movement in the 1960s was very similar. Most respondents thought that demonstrations, boycotts and sit-ins did more harm than good and that they were organised by communists. The judgement of history has been somewhat different. I support BLM.
It's interesting polling, and of course there are nuances to it you haven't pointed out. For example in that same poll you linked to 71% thought MLK was moving at the right speed on equal rights, 94% rated MLK's role as positive in civil rights, 48% sided with the civil rights groups over the state of Alabama (21%) in that particular dispute, 72% said they would support a peaceful parade, march or picketing.
What they objected to was mass demonstrations and, in particular, violent riots, where 87% said it hurt the cause. We tend to remember MLK because of his speeches, and in particular because he was also tragically assassinated, but we tend to forget there was a lot of other disorder and violence that came with it at the time. And, don't forget, whilst there were some civil rights reforms in the 60s it clearly wasn't enough as recent decades, and this year in particular, has demonstrated, so who's to say they were wrong?
We find similar results today: people support marches, protests and racial equality but they don't support disorder; statues being pulled down, violence or flipping racialised language on its head.
I support equality for black people, but I don't support all of the political objectives of the BLM movement. In fact, I object to BLM spokesman who claim that any criticism of their movement is an objection to challenging racism - it's highly disingenuous and I think they know it very well; they are just using it as a shield to advance their broader politics with cover, and that's what may prove to be the divisive and counterproductive bit in the end.
The majority of us on the "other side" would agree word for word with your last paragraph. The difference is we see the self proclaimed BLM organisers words as carrying far less weight than the majority of protestors who have zero interest in revolutionary marxism or whatever they are. They are just fringe idiots exploiting a cause, and should be ignored as such.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
Strange. I've read a lot of Marx, and I don't recall him ever commenting on police brutality in the USA.
Not strange at all, the fact that he didn't comment on a matter doesn't prevent people who follow his theories applying them to it
The assertion that the protests are organised or coopted by committed marxists may or may not be bollocks, but whether Marx said anything about that kind of situation is hardly relevant to it being bollocks I'd have thought. Surely the whole point of philosophers, prophets and political theorists is that they ideas can have applicability to people and places far removed from the mere circumstances of their time, and serve as inspiration to others?
I agree with your general point, but not in this specific instance. If BLM were marxist (which I don't believe it is) it's not really an application of Marx himself, but of a range of 20th C polemicists who claim (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly) that their theorising is an update of Marx himself. I'm pretty sure that if we could bring back Marx for a chat, he would disown the ideas of many of those who claim to be influenced by him.
Yes but I don't see the relevance of that as it's them being criticised, not him. Perhaps other marxists could complain that other self proclaimed marxists (if that is what is happening) are not true marxists, but like other essentially religious disputes what they call themselves matters. If they call themselves that, it's not hugely unfair to call them that. If marxists are upset then 'so called' could be added to it.
In a previous life I used to teach this stuff. If I had a pound for every time a student wrote: "According to Marx, the (fill in here with anything, but as an example....) Brixton riots were caused by......", I'd be a rich man. Rather than "so-called", we usually ended up with "neo-marxists". Anyway the key figure in all this culture stuff, rather than class stuff, is Gramsci rather than Marx - but even he has not commented on anything since 1937.
I have a feeling many more teachers than usual are shortly going to be saying that stuff about ‘a previous life.’
Metaphorically or literally? (Having "temporarily" pinged out of the classroom a while back, I'm definitely delaying any return as much as possible...)
Metaphorically.
One thing those heaping mindless abuse on teachers for urging that we close schools to stop the relentless rise of Covid within them seem to forget is that teachers don’t have to work in schools.
But if they don’t, there will be no schools...
Unfortunately, that's not bothered the powers that be before, and there's a chunky recession incoming.
Did you hear about the academy trust who planned to use their autonomy to close a week early this term?
Given our responsibility to both backers and layers to ensure that the markets are settled correctly and given the unprecedented amount of money that has been traded on these markets, we have sought advice from leading U.S. lawyers to determine the appropriate time to settle the markets.
Leading US lawyers? They've been asking Rudi Giuliani and Lionel Hutz haven't they?
The only way Giuliani is a leading lawyer is if he asks questions that invite single word answers.
Nothing barking about it, manipulative and deceitful absolutely but he is not mad, just bad.
The damage to US democracy being done by one man - Donald J Trump - is extraordinary and scary.
I fervently hope - although I'm not optimistic - that the incoming administration is able to find a bipartisan way to increase trust in elections and the democratic process. Because right now, Republicans see working with Democrats as electoral suicide. And therefore would rather cry foul from the sidelines.
I'm sorry @rcs1000 but US democracy has been damaged from 2016 when we had the whole "the election was stolen" narrative then but from the other side. Two impeachment trials later, the constant claims that Trump was Putin's man in the White House, the claims his Presidency was illegitimate etc etc. Just because many of those making the claims had degrees from the Ivy League and spoke in quiet and methodical tones doesn't mean they weren't dangerous and eroded democratic trust.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
Strange. I've read a lot of Marx, and I don't recall him ever commenting on police brutality in the USA.
Not strange at all, the fact that he didn't comment on a matter doesn't prevent people who follow his theories applying them to it
The assertion that the protests are organised or coopted by committed marxists may or may not be bollocks, but whether Marx said anything about that kind of situation is hardly relevant to it being bollocks I'd have thought. Surely the whole point of philosophers, prophets and political theorists is that they ideas can have applicability to people and places far removed from the mere circumstances of their time, and serve as inspiration to others?
I agree with your general point, but not in this specific instance. If BLM were marxist (which I don't believe it is) it's not really an application of Marx himself, but of a range of 20th C polemicists who claim (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly) that their theorising is an update of Marx himself. I'm pretty sure that if we could bring back Marx for a chat, he would disown the ideas of many of those who claim to be influenced by him.
Yes but I don't see the relevance of that as it's them being criticised, not him. Perhaps other marxists could complain that other self proclaimed marxists (if that is what is happening) are not true marxists, but like other essentially religious disputes what they call themselves matters. If they call themselves that, it's not hugely unfair to call them that. If marxists are upset then 'so called' could be added to it.
In a previous life I used to teach this stuff. If I had a pound for every time a student wrote: "According to Marx, the (fill in here with anything, but as an example....) Brixton riots were caused by......", I'd be a rich man. Rather than "so-called", we usually ended up with "neo-marxists". Anyway the key figure in all this culture stuff, rather than class stuff, is Gramsci rather than Marx - but even he has not commented on anything since 1937.
I have a feeling many more teachers than usual are shortly going to be saying that stuff about ‘a previous life.’
Metaphorically or literally? (Having "temporarily" pinged out of the classroom a while back, I'm definitely delaying any return as much as possible...)
Metaphorically.
One thing those heaping mindless abuse on teachers for urging that we close schools to stop the relentless rise of Covid within them seem to forget is that teachers don’t have to work in schools.
But if they don’t, there will be no schools...
Unfortunately, that's not bothered the powers that be before, and there's a chunky recession incoming.
Did you hear about the academy trust who planned to use their autonomy to close a week early this term?
I would have loved them to dare the local stooge, er, education tsar to do it, and then point out that actually they’re closing because they have no teaching staff.
But they didn’t fancy the fight.
Given what has been unleashed in terms of abuse, bullying and threats of actual violence by some of the government’s more deranged supporters against teachers who speak out, it’s not surprising but it is depressing.
Opinion polling on the US civil rights movement in the 1960s was very similar. Most respondents thought that demonstrations, boycotts and sit-ins did more harm than good and that they were organised by communists. The judgement of history has been somewhat different. I support BLM.
It's interesting polling, and of course there are nuances to it you haven't pointed out. For example in that same poll you linked to 71% thought MLK was moving at the right speed on equal rights, 94% rated MLK's role as positive in civil rights, 48% sided with the civil rights groups over the state of Alabama (21%) in that particular dispute, 72% said they would support a peaceful parade, march or picketing.
What they objected to was mass demonstrations and, in particular, violent riots, where 87% said it hurt the cause. We tend to remember MLK because of his speeches, and in particular because he was also tragically assassinated, but we tend to forget there was a lot of other disorder and violence that came with it at the time. And, don't forget, whilst there were some civil rights reforms in the 60s it clearly wasn't enough as recent decades, and this year in particular, has demonstrated, so who's to say they were wrong?
We find similar results today: people support marches, protests and racial equality but they don't support disorder; statues being pulled down, violence or flipping racialised language on its head.
I support equality for black people, but I don't support all of the political objectives of the BLM movement. In fact, I object to BLM spokesman who claim that any criticism of their movement is an objection to challenging racism - it's highly disingenuous and I think they know it very well; they are just using it as a shield to advance their broader politics with cover, and that's what may prove to be the divisive and counterproductive bit in the end.
The majority of us on the "other side" would agree word for word with your last paragraph. The difference is we see the self proclaimed BLM organisers words as carrying far less weight than the majority of protestors who have zero interest in revolutionary marxism or whatever they are. They are just fringe idiots exploiting a cause, and should be ignored as such.
Then, that's fair enough. I just think a distinction should be drawn for the good of the cause.
Nothing barking about it, manipulative and deceitful absolutely but he is not mad, just bad.
The damage to US democracy being done by one man - Donald J Trump - is extraordinary and scary.
I fervently hope - although I'm not optimistic - that the incoming administration is able to find a bipartisan way to increase trust in elections and the democratic process. Because right now, Republicans see working with Democrats as electoral suicide. And therefore would rather cry foul from the sidelines.
I'm sorry @rcs1000 but US democracy has been damaged from 2016 when we had the whole "the election was stolen" narrative then but from the other side. Two impeachment trials later, the constant claims that Trump was Putin's man in the White House, the claims his Presidency was illegitimate etc etc. Just because many of those making the claims had degrees from the Ivy League and spoke in quiet and methodical tones doesn't mean they weren't dangerous and eroded democratic trust.
Hang on - you're arguing that Democracy has been damaged by Democracy. Or did I get that wrong?
The damage to US democracy being done by one man - Donald J Trump - is extraordinary and scary.
I fervently hope - although I'm not optimistic - that the incoming administration is able to find a bipartisan way to increase trust in elections and the democratic process. Because right now, Republicans see working with Democrats as electoral suicide. And therefore would rather cry foul from the sidelines.
One might hope that them losing in court, badly, repeatedly, might give some cover for the "President was a raving lunatic" narrative to take...
Look. Three weeks ago, people were talking about the possibility Trump might somehow get all those judges he's appointed to agree with him, or how Trump would get the Electoral College to vote against their mandate.
By Jan 20, for most Republican politicians, still co-operating with the loser Trump will be electoral suicide. Apart from hard-core family members, even the most populist Republican will be slagging the Dems off in public, and working with them in Congress and State legislatures to get their pork-barrel bills through.
Just like the "Trumpite" judges who put their legal credibility before anything else: they're politicians first.
And Trump's always been too thick to understand that.
Nothing barking about it, manipulative and deceitful absolutely but he is not mad, just bad.
The damage to US democracy being done by one man - Donald J Trump - is extraordinary and scary.
I fervently hope - although I'm not optimistic - that the incoming administration is able to find a bipartisan way to increase trust in elections and the democratic process. Because right now, Republicans see working with Democrats as electoral suicide. And therefore would rather cry foul from the sidelines.
I happen to agree, it is very damaging. Trump doesn't like the result and wants to ignore it, to the gross detriment of democracy.
Still, the phenomenon is rather more widespread than Donald Trump, no ?
How many Remainers believed it was right to ignore an inconvenient referendum ?
Certainly, an entire political party fought a general election on those grounds in 2019.
Between the Donald Trumps of this world and e.g., the LibDems, there is a difference, but perhaps not so great as the latter pretend.
Opinion polling on the US civil rights movement in the 1960s was very similar. Most respondents thought that demonstrations, boycotts and sit-ins did more harm than good and that they were organised by communists. The judgement of history has been somewhat different. I support BLM.
It's interesting polling, and of course there are nuances to it you haven't pointed out. For example in that same poll you linked to 71% thought MLK was moving at the right speed on equal rights, 94% rated MLK's role as positive in civil rights, 48% sided with the civil rights groups over the state of Alabama (21%) in that particular dispute, 72% said they would support a peaceful parade, march or picketing.
What they objected to was mass demonstrations and, in particular, violent riots, where 87% said it hurt the cause. We tend to remember MLK because of his speeches, and in particular because he was also tragically assassinated, but we tend to forget there was a lot of other disorder and violence that came with it at the time. And, don't forget, whilst there were some civil rights reforms in the 60s it clearly wasn't enough as recent decades, and this year in particular, has demonstrated, so who's to say they were wrong?
We find similar results today: people support marches, protests and racial equality but they don't support disorder; statues being pulled down, violence or flipping racialised language on its head.
I support equality for black people, but I don't support all of the political objectives of the BLM movement. In fact, I object to BLM spokesman who claim that any criticism of their movement is an objection to challenging racism - it's highly disingenuous and I think they know it very well; they are just using it as a shield to advance their broader politics with cover, and that's what may prove to be the divisive and counterproductive bit in the end.
The majority of us on the "other side" would agree word for word with your last paragraph. The difference is we see the self proclaimed BLM organisers words as carrying far less weight than the majority of protestors who have zero interest in revolutionary marxism or whatever they are. They are just fringe idiots exploiting a cause, and should be ignored as such.
Then, that's fair enough. I just think a distinction should be drawn for the good of the cause.
How? The distinction has to be drawn by the observer, who should listen to the majority of voices and not the fringe "organisers". In a free society there is nothing stopping fringe groups proclaiming themselves the "organisers" of an idea, so it can only be done by observers.
Notice even Remainers like Vivienne Stern say "Now, even we think that doesn’t look fair, and we’ve been saying to our European counterparts."
Vivienne Stern spent 2 years bleating that No Deal would be hugely damaging -- and now she has her deal, she has discovered she does not like it. Her European friends are not ... errr ... really friends.
It is a hugely exploitative deal.
In my opinion, it is way better for UK science not to accept this deal, but to use the money to support .... err .... science in the UK.
I'm a UK scientist and I've been involved in several FP7 projects - now working in a slightly different field and mostly UK (in fact UK charity, rather than government) funded, so I don't directly have an interest.
The main selling point of FP7, H2020 etc funding compared to domestic funding was that it made it easy to put together a research team with the best people across a wide number of countries. That was why other countries were willing to be net contributors because it gave their academics the chance to be part of projects that they simply didn't have the expertise or capacity to undertake themselves. A nice side effect was that the UK used to get more than it contributed, particularly because other countries' academics wanted UK-based people in their research collaborations because they were often at the top of the field (UK-based, not necessarily UK nationals) so UK-based researchers got onto a disproportionate number of successful bids.
Simply replacing the lost money is not the same - it will keep academics in work, but it will be more complicated to bring together the best expertise into a research project. That would require either being able to use the UK funding to fund collaborators in the EU (in which case we'll become net contributors anyway) or for those other countries to be able to raise their own funds for a project at the same time - effectively two funding bids, one on the UK side and one on the EU side, both of which have to come off (funders also think about risk, so that's not ideal, in itself).
There may be some positives, building up UK centres of excellence - possibly poaching some of the leading researchers to come to the UK - rather than just collaborating with the best team in Germany, France, wherever, but the research return for x amount spent may be lower. Poaching the best to come over here will be expensive, although if there is a local boost in capacity it may have long term benefits.
There are also many other funding streams of course, many international, which won't be directly affected. There is also of course a point at which Horizon Europe becomes too expensive and not worth it. That may be at the proposed level, but it's hard to precisely assess the costs and benefits of being in or out. One thing is sure, it looks like the position will be worse post-transition than before (either we'll be paying more or we won't be involved).
I am a UK Scientist and I have also had plenty of money off the EU in my time.
However, I am extremely critical of EU science policy, which has largely destroyed the scientific institutes of the former Eastern Bloc countries. It has given to those countries that are strong in science (primarily the UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands), and ruthlessly taken away from those that had little. One could have imagined a policy in which the scientific strengths of Poland or the Czech Republic or Hungary had been protected and strengthened. That was very far from the effect of the EU's science policy.
Horizon 2020 is extremely wasteful, when the proportion of funding that goes to science versus that going to administration of the schemes is considered. Just compare the money spent on administration to national schemes in the UK or the US. (Although, at a personal level, I found that advising the EU on a matter of science policy is always highly profitable -- in the end I stopped doing it as it made me feel unclean).
The strongest Universities in Europe are not in the the EU. They are in the UK & Switzerland. ETH Zurich is the highest ranked University on the European mainland when it comes to the sciences. The UK (and also Switrzerland) are being shafted by these deals. If we agree to them, it will lead to less science done in the Uk, and less scientists employed in the UK.
The deal (which is not worth taking) shows a complete lack of confidence in UK science by those ostensibly in charge. The top of UK science is filled with normally uncritical admirers of the EU & they have been completely shafted by "their friends".
We all need to learn rcs's famous mantra. "Countries do not have friends, they have interests."
This science deal is in the interests of Germany, the Netherlands and France, who will be the principal beneficiaries.
Why are you surprised that the EU is looking after its own interests?
I am not surprised. I expected it.
It is the leaders of Universities UK or the Royal Society or Scientists for the EU who are surprised that -- as they see it -- "their friends" are shafting them.
As you would discover, if you read the original link. Here it is again:
The phrase "their friends" doesn't appear in the article, and it is blindingly obvious that the shafting is being done by our own government in withdrawing from the EU in the first place.
It was evident from the start that Brexit would be a disaster for British science, which is why the overwhelming majority of scientists were remainers. Your attempts to blame those who campaigned to stay in the EU for the inevitable consequences of leaving the EU are, frankly, bizarre.
I have merely said that if a science deal transfers a net 3 billion pounds of the UK science budget to Europe, it is a bad deal for UK science.
That is a net loss of 3 billion pounds to UK science. That is many, many UK science jobs lost.
Better than signing that deal is to organise our own schemes for collaboration with Europe (or Asia or the US). It could be done easily, and administered cheaply (much more cheaply than the EU's scheme).
As a scientist, I try not to use blustering phrases like ... "blindingly obvious" ... or "evident from the start" ... without providing some proof.
You have to prove "the obvious" and "the evident" time and time again. That is the very essence of this thing that we call science.
If you were really a scientist, you'd know that there is no such thing as proof in science. You sound more like a bullshitter to me.
I can think of a number of scientists whose theories have been vindicated when proof was found: bismuth-209 being radioactive for instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bismuth-209
Yes, I'm struggling to see the story here even if it was requested and even if it was felt unreasonable to do it. People, organisations and goverments put flags on things.
EU does it - absolutely fine! UK does it - disgraceful jingoistic nationalism!
Bit like that story on Irish processed beef: EU - implements controls - to maintain food standards UK - implements (identical) controls - retaliation!
Does the EU have a unit for the preservation of the EU that asks that the EU flag goes on stuff to fight off the vile separatists? Will EU vaccines be beflagged?
Am I correct in seeing a fair number of Tier 3 places with an R below 1. And quite a few Tier 2 with R above 1?
All except Wales are below 1.
Yes - Wales seems to be on different trajectory. The rest of the UK is getting more closely aligned in terms of R
Just beginning to show in the hospitalisation data
The recent trend in Wales should give us cause for concern in England. The pictures of dense crowds doing Christmas shopping in Cardiff are scary, but we should remember that from 3rd December there will be people doing much the same in England, even in Tier 3 areas.
At least the Welsh Government has to its credit not taken long to react and is acting to tighten things up in indoor areas, to resemble something not too far removed from Tier 3 restrictions in England. Let's just hope it works enough to bring the Welsh R number below 1 again. One critical difference with England is that the Welsh hospitality industry has been promised a "further major package of financial support" to cushion the blow.
Nothing barking about it, manipulative and deceitful absolutely but he is not mad, just bad.
The damage to US democracy being done by one man - Donald J Trump - is extraordinary and scary.
I fervently hope - although I'm not optimistic - that the incoming administration is able to find a bipartisan way to increase trust in elections and the democratic process. Because right now, Republicans see working with Democrats as electoral suicide. And therefore would rather cry foul from the sidelines.
The primary system in the US has a lot to answer for. It incentivises candidates to adopt extreme positions so the base will vote for them. Once in congress there is no chance of bipartisan agreement, and polarisation results.
Nothing barking about it, manipulative and deceitful absolutely but he is not mad, just bad.
The damage to US democracy being done by one man - Donald J Trump - is extraordinary and scary.
I fervently hope - although I'm not optimistic - that the incoming administration is able to find a bipartisan way to increase trust in elections and the democratic process. Because right now, Republicans see working with Democrats as electoral suicide. And therefore would rather cry foul from the sidelines.
I'm sorry @rcs1000 but US democracy has been damaged from 2016 when we had the whole "the election was stolen" narrative then but from the other side. Two impeachment trials later, the constant claims that Trump was Putin's man in the White House, the claims his Presidency was illegitimate etc etc. Just because many of those making the claims had degrees from the Ivy League and spoke in quiet and methodical tones doesn't mean they weren't dangerous and eroded democratic trust.
Apples and Oranges. In the Russia case, there was certainly a case to answer and it was only Trump being president that saved from being indicted. As for Ukraine, had the Constitution stipulated a normal jury rather than one filled with GOP senators, he would certainly have been found guilty.
Trumps case in contrast is based on imaginary crimes which have been laughed out of court repeatedly.
Well of course it has, I thought that was the point? Marxists believe change comes via conflict, so they set out to cause conflict
Yes. But most of those who took part in the mass protests following the George Floyd murder were not driven by a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. They were driven by disgust at the event and what it yet again highlighted. The conflation of the fight against racism with far left extremism is a palpably false one and is imo attempted mainly by those whose motives for doing so do not bear close examination.
No, they were on mass protests organised by a people with a burning ideological attachment to Karl Marx. When far left extremists hijack the fight against racism I think we should be allowed to notice it.
Strange. I've read a lot of Marx, and I don't recall him ever commenting on police brutality in the USA.
Not strange at all, the fact that he didn't comment on a matter doesn't prevent people who follow his theories applying them to it
The assertion that the protests are organised or coopted by committed marxists may or may not be bollocks, but whether Marx said anything about that kind of situation is hardly relevant to it being bollocks I'd have thought. Surely the whole point of philosophers, prophets and political theorists is that they ideas can have applicability to people and places far removed from the mere circumstances of their time, and serve as inspiration to others?
I agree with your general point, but not in this specific instance. If BLM were marxist (which I don't believe it is) it's not really an application of Marx himself, but of a range of 20th C polemicists who claim (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly) that their theorising is an update of Marx himself. I'm pretty sure that if we could bring back Marx for a chat, he would disown the ideas of many of those who claim to be influenced by him.
Yes but I don't see the relevance of that as it's them being criticised, not him. Perhaps other marxists could complain that other self proclaimed marxists (if that is what is happening) are not true marxists, but like other essentially religious disputes what they call themselves matters. If they call themselves that, it's not hugely unfair to call them that. If marxists are upset then 'so called' could be added to it.
In a previous life I used to teach this stuff. If I had a pound for every time a student wrote: "According to Marx, the (fill in here with anything, but as an example....) Brixton riots were caused by......", I'd be a rich man. Rather than "so-called", we usually ended up with "neo-marxists". Anyway the key figure in all this culture stuff, rather than class stuff, is Gramsci rather than Marx - but even he has not commented on anything since 1937.
I have a feeling many more teachers than usual are shortly going to be saying that stuff about ‘a previous life.’
Metaphorically or literally? (Having "temporarily" pinged out of the classroom a while back, I'm definitely delaying any return as much as possible...)
Metaphorically.
One thing those heaping mindless abuse on teachers for urging that we close schools to stop the relentless rise of Covid within them seem to forget is that teachers don’t have to work in schools.
But if they don’t, there will be no schools...
Unfortunately, that's not bothered the powers that be before, and there's a chunky recession incoming.
Did you hear about the academy trust who planned to use their autonomy to close a week early this term?
I would have loved them to dare the local stooge, er, education tsar to do it, and then point out that actually they’re closing because they have no teaching staff.
But they didn’t fancy the fight.
Given what has been unleashed in terms of abuse, bullying and threats of actual violence by some of the government’s more deranged supporters against teachers who speak out, it’s not surprising but it is depressing.
My youngest has no qualified teachers in History left standing at his school. Since his A level timetable had only history today he didn't go in. This will be for 2 weeks at least. Other subject teachers can't just jump in to teach A Level. Besides, there are no teachers of any kind free.
2020 started off Shi'ite and it is now going to end Shi'ite.
Will Paddy Power price it up ?
CIA, Mossad, Saudi, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Russia, Turkey all in the running here.
Side bet - False flag operation for any of the above
I was amused at the BBC article not making any explicit comment as to who may had done it, but ending with an apparent non-sequitur on Netanyahu having mentioned the scientist by name in a 2018 speech about Iran's nuclear program.
I would be somewhat surprised if there had been no communication about it between Netanyahu and the White House. Prior to the event.
Not necessarily. It could have been a "rogue" unit worried Netanyahu was making too much peace so wanted to aggravate tensions with Arab states before any more peace could be made. A pattern not unknown around the world.
Nothing barking about it, manipulative and deceitful absolutely but he is not mad, just bad.
The damage to US democracy being done by one man - Donald J Trump - is extraordinary and scary.
I fervently hope - although I'm not optimistic - that the incoming administration is able to find a bipartisan way to increase trust in elections and the democratic process. Because right now, Republicans see working with Democrats as electoral suicide. And therefore would rather cry foul from the sidelines.
The primary system in the US has a lot to answer for. It incentivises candidates to adopt extreme positions so the base will vote for them. Once in congress there is no chance of bipartisan agreement, and polarisation results.
Same with leadership elections by membership here instead of the old MPs back rooms. The old way was perhaps less democratic in the short term, but far superior for democracy in the long term.
My youngest has no qualified teachers in History left standing at his school. Since his A level timetable had only history today he didn't go in. This will be for 2 weeks at least. Other subject teachers can't just jump in to teach A Level. Besides, there are no teachers of any kind free.
But it’s all OK because only 0.2% of children are off because they have Corona, so we can easily make the end of term.
This is quite amusing, as my work touches on tourism, and one of my long-held ambitions is to build a replica of the Arc de Triomphe in Blackpool. I'll take the Tweet as a sign.
Nothing barking about it, manipulative and deceitful absolutely but he is not mad, just bad.
The damage to US democracy being done by one man - Donald J Trump - is extraordinary and scary.
I fervently hope - although I'm not optimistic - that the incoming administration is able to find a bipartisan way to increase trust in elections and the democratic process. Because right now, Republicans see working with Democrats as electoral suicide. And therefore would rather cry foul from the sidelines.
I'm sorry @rcs1000 but US democracy has been damaged from 2016 when we had the whole "the election was stolen" narrative then but from the other side. Two impeachment trials later, the constant claims that Trump was Putin's man in the White House, the claims his Presidency was illegitimate etc etc. Just because many of those making the claims had degrees from the Ivy League and spoke in quiet and methodical tones doesn't mean they weren't dangerous and eroded democratic trust.
Hang on - you're arguing that Democracy has been damaged by Democracy. Or did I get that wrong?
Thatcher and Wilson were elected by their parliamentary colleagues.
If large numbers of people are stupid enough to continue to bet on Trump, you can't blame Betfair for keeping the market open in order to get their 5% cut.
Notice even Remainers like Vivienne Stern say "Now, even we think that doesn’t look fair, and we’ve been saying to our European counterparts."
Vivienne Stern spent 2 years bleating that No Deal would be hugely damaging -- and now she has her deal, she has discovered she does not like it. Her European friends are not ... errr ... really friends.
It is a hugely exploitative deal.
In my opinion, it is way better for UK science not to accept this deal, but to use the money to support .... err .... science in the UK.
I'm a UK scientist and I've been involved in several FP7 projects - now working in a slightly different field and mostly UK (in fact UK charity, rather than government) funded, so I don't directly have an interest.
The main selling point of FP7, H2020 etc funding compared to domestic funding was that it made it easy to put together a research team with the best people across a wide number of countries. That was why other countries were willing to be net contributors because it gave their academics the chance to be part of projects that they simply didn't have the expertise or capacity to undertake themselves. A nice side effect was that the UK used to get more than it contributed, particularly because other countries' academics wanted UK-based people in their research collaborations because they were often at the top of the field (UK-based, not necessarily UK nationals) so UK-based researchers got onto a disproportionate number of successful bids.
Simply replacing the lost money is not the same - it will keep academics in work, but it will be more complicated to bring together the best expertise into a research project. That would require either being able to use the UK funding to fund collaborators in the EU (in which case we'll become net contributors anyway) or for those other countries to be able to raise their own funds for a project at the same time - effectively two funding bids, one on the UK side and one on the EU side, both of which have to come off (funders also think about risk, so that's not ideal, in itself).
There may be some positives, building up UK centres of excellence - possibly poaching some of the leading researchers to come to the UK - rather than just collaborating with the best team in Germany, France, wherever, but the research return for x amount spent may be lower. Poaching the best to come over here will be expensive, although if there is a local boost in capacity it may have long term benefits.
There are also many other funding streams of course, many international, which won't be directly affected. There is also of course a point at which Horizon Europe becomes too expensive and not worth it. That may be at the proposed level, but it's hard to precisely assess the costs and benefits of being in or out. One thing is sure, it looks like the position will be worse post-transition than before (either we'll be paying more or we won't be involved).
I am a UK Scientist and I have also had plenty of money off the EU in my time.
However, I am extremely critical of EU science policy, which has largely destroyed the scientific institutes of the former Eastern Bloc countries. It has given to those countries that are strong in science (primarily the UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands), and ruthlessly taken away from those that had little. One could have imagined a policy in which the scientific strengths of Poland or the Czech Republic or Hungary had been protected and strengthened. That was very far from the effect of the EU's science policy.
Horizon 2020 is extremely wasteful, when the proportion of funding that goes to science versus that going to administration of the schemes is considered. Just compare the money spent on administration to national schemes in the UK or the US. (Although, at a personal level, I found that advising the EU on a matter of science policy is always highly profitable -- in the end I stopped doing it as it made me feel unclean).
The strongest Universities in Europe are not in the the EU. They are in the UK & Switzerland. ETH Zurich is the highest ranked University on the European mainland when it comes to the sciences. The UK (and also Switrzerland) are being shafted by these deals. If we agree to them, it will lead to less science done in the Uk, and less scientists employed in the UK.
The deal (which is not worth taking) shows a complete lack of confidence in UK science by those ostensibly in charge. The top of UK science is filled with normally uncritical admirers of the EU & they have been completely shafted by "their friends".
We all need to learn rcs's famous mantra. "Countries do not have friends, they have interests."
This science deal is in the interests of Germany, the Netherlands and France, who will be the principal beneficiaries.
Why are you surprised that the EU is looking after its own interests?
I am not surprised. I expected it.
It is the leaders of Universities UK or the Royal Society or Scientists for the EU who are surprised that -- as they see it -- "their friends" are shafting them.
As you would discover, if you read the original link. Here it is again:
The phrase "their friends" doesn't appear in the article, and it is blindingly obvious that the shafting is being done by our own government in withdrawing from the EU in the first place.
It was evident from the start that Brexit would be a disaster for British science, which is why the overwhelming majority of scientists were remainers. Your attempts to blame those who campaigned to stay in the EU for the inevitable consequences of leaving the EU are, frankly, bizarre.
I have merely said that if a science deal transfers a net 3 billion pounds of the UK science budget to Europe, it is a bad deal for UK science.
That is a net loss of 3 billion pounds to UK science. That is many, many UK science jobs lost.
Better than signing that deal is to organise our own schemes for collaboration with Europe (or Asia or the US). It could be done easily, and administered cheaply (much more cheaply than the EU's scheme).
As a scientist, I try not to use blustering phrases like ... "blindingly obvious" ... or "evident from the start" ... without providing some proof.
You have to prove "the obvious" and "the evident" time and time again. That is the very essence of this thing that we call science.
If you were really a scientist, you'd know that there is no such thing as proof in science. You sound more like a bullshitter to me.
I can think of a number of scientists whose theories have been vindicated when proof was found: bismuth-209 being radioactive for instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bismuth-209
Nothing barking about it, manipulative and deceitful absolutely but he is not mad, just bad.
The damage to US democracy being done by one man - Donald J Trump - is extraordinary and scary.
I fervently hope - although I'm not optimistic - that the incoming administration is able to find a bipartisan way to increase trust in elections and the democratic process. Because right now, Republicans see working with Democrats as electoral suicide. And therefore would rather cry foul from the sidelines.
I'm sorry @rcs1000 but US democracy has been damaged from 2016 when we had the whole "the election was stolen" narrative then but from the other side. Two impeachment trials later, the constant claims that Trump was Putin's man in the White House, the claims his Presidency was illegitimate etc etc. Just because many of those making the claims had degrees from the Ivy League and spoke in quiet and methodical tones doesn't mean they weren't dangerous and eroded democratic trust.
What I find touching, and a little sweet, is that people believe Betfair actually pays any attention to its rules.
In important news, 85 to get off 8 overs. That’s not impossible but these two have to bat through if that’s to happen. Morgan might help but then it’s the Curran brothers...
Given our responsibility to both backers and layers to ensure that the markets are settled correctly and given the unprecedented amount of money that has been traded on these markets, we have sought advice from leading U.S. lawyers to determine the appropriate time to settle the markets.
Leading US lawyers? They've been asking Rudi Giuliani and Lionel Hutz haven't they?
Prior to 27th Nov: we will settle the market based on projected results. Now: We will probably settle the market based on the ECV meeting.
Given our responsibility to both backers and layers to ensure that the markets are settled correctly and given the unprecedented amount of money that has been traded on these markets, we have sought advice from leading U.S. lawyers to determine the appropriate time to settle the markets.
Leading US lawyers? They've been asking Rudi Giuliani and Lionel Hutz haven't they?
Prior to 27th Nov: we will settle the market based on projected results. Now: We will probably settle the market based on the ECV meeting.
I'm glad I have cashed out as best I can.
For 2024 BF need a whole new set of POTUS rules.
I've kept regular screenshots of their terms/rules.
What I find touching, and a little sweet, is that people believe Betfair actually pays any attention to its rules.
In important news, 85 to get off 8 overs. That’s not impossible but these two have to bat through if that’s to happen. Morgan might help but then it’s the Curran brothers...
Nothing barking about it, manipulative and deceitful absolutely but he is not mad, just bad.
The damage to US democracy being done by one man - Donald J Trump - is extraordinary and scary.
I fervently hope - although I'm not optimistic - that the incoming administration is able to find a bipartisan way to increase trust in elections and the democratic process. Because right now, Republicans see working with Democrats as electoral suicide. And therefore would rather cry foul from the sidelines.
I'm sorry @rcs1000 but US democracy has been damaged from 2016 when we had the whole "the election was stolen" narrative then but from the other side. Two impeachment trials later, the constant claims that Trump was Putin's man in the White House, the claims his Presidency was illegitimate etc etc. Just because many of those making the claims had degrees from the Ivy League and spoke in quiet and methodical tones doesn't mean they weren't dangerous and eroded democratic trust.
Given Eric Clapton's past racism I'm surprised he hasn't been cancelled long ago.
I thought he'd made a fairly extensive apology for what I'd believed was a passing drug induced faux pas, but on checking he had a fecking lot to apologise for.
'This is Great Britain, a white country, what is happening to us, for fuck's sake? We need to vote for Enoch Powell, he's a great man, speaking truth. Vote for Enoch, he's our man, he's on our side, he'll look after us. I want all of you here to vote for Enoch, support him, he's on our side. Enoch for Prime Minister! Throw the wogs out! Keep Britain white!'
(this is only a small part of what might reasonably called a filthy racist diatribe)
Comments
Can't be worse, I guess...
Just beginning to show in the hospitalisation data
Oh, wait...
https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1332378087988879365
I fervently hope - although I'm not optimistic - that the incoming administration is able to find a bipartisan way to increase trust in elections and the democratic process. Because right now, Republicans see working with Democrats as electoral suicide. And therefore would rather cry foul from the sidelines.
https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/network-rail-staff-help-primary-school-in-county-durham-with-plans-to-create-a-repurposed-library
Its's rather annoying that there isn't a data mapping available of Lower Tier Local Authorities to Tiers....
It's interesting polling, and of course there are nuances to it you haven't pointed out. For example in that same poll you linked to 71% thought MLK was moving at the right speed on equal rights, 94% rated MLK's role as positive in civil rights, 48% sided with the civil rights groups over the state of Alabama (21%) in that particular dispute, 72% said they would support a peaceful parade, march or picketing.
What they objected to was mass demonstrations and, in particular, violent riots, where 87% said it hurt the cause. We tend to remember MLK because of his speeches, and in particular because he was also tragically assassinated, but we tend to forget there was a lot of other disorder and violence that came with it at the time. And, don't forget, whilst there were some civil rights reforms in the 60s it clearly wasn't enough as recent decades, and this year in particular, has demonstrated, so who's to say they were wrong?
We find similar results today: people support marches, protests and racial equality but they don't support disorder; statues being pulled down, violence or flipping racialised language on its head.
I support equality for black people, but I don't support all of the political objectives of the BLM movement. In fact, I object to BLM spokesman who claim that any criticism of their movement is an objection to challenging racism - it's highly disingenuous and I think they know it very well; they are just using it as a shield to advance their broader politics with cover, and that's what may prove to be the divisive and counterproductive bit in the end.
The SWP/Black Block types would complain that instead of allowing them to mingle in the crowd, and let them cause trouble inside the demo, they would get separated out.
With no-one to hide behind, their boldness in attacking the police suffered.
(Having "temporarily" pinged out of the classroom a while back, I'm definitely delaying any return as much as possible...)
One thing those heaping mindless abuse on teachers for urging that we close schools to stop the relentless rise of Covid within them seem to forget is that teachers don’t have to work in schools.
But if they don’t, there will be no schools...
https://twitter.com/BetfairCS/status/1332380134750511110
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/nov/27/newbury-talking-horses-horse-racing-tips
Leading US lawyers? They've been asking Rudi Giuliani and Lionel Hutz haven't they?
Did you hear about the academy trust who planned to use their autonomy to close a week early this term?
Turns out that autonomy doesn't mean like that...
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/government-asks-schools-review-decision-19329249
But they didn’t fancy the fight.
Given what has been unleashed in terms of abuse, bullying and threats of actual violence by some of the government’s more deranged supporters against teachers who speak out, it’s not surprising but it is depressing.
By Jan 20, for most Republican politicians, still co-operating with the loser Trump will be electoral suicide. Apart from hard-core family members, even the most populist Republican will be slagging the Dems off in public, and working with them in Congress and State legislatures to get their pork-barrel bills through.
Just like the "Trumpite" judges who put their legal credibility before anything else: they're politicians first.
And Trump's always been too thick to understand that.
Still, the phenomenon is rather more widespread than Donald Trump, no ?
How many Remainers believed it was right to ignore an inconvenient referendum ?
Certainly, an entire political party fought a general election on those grounds in 2019.
Between the Donald Trumps of this world and e.g., the LibDems, there is a difference, but perhaps not so great as the latter pretend.
‘There’s no question Bairstow is a reasonable player of spin...’
At least the Welsh Government has to its credit not taken long to react and is acting to tighten things up in indoor areas, to resemble something not too far removed from Tier 3 restrictions in England. Let's just hope it works enough to bring the Welsh R number below 1 again. One critical difference with England is that the Welsh hospitality industry has been promised a "further major package of financial support" to cushion the blow.
Trumps case in contrast is based on imaginary crimes which have been laughed out of court repeatedly.
Other subject teachers can't just jump in to teach A Level. Besides, there are no teachers of any kind free.
Which is the opposite of what their rules say.
https://twitter.com/MoonQuaver/status/1332380383489429506?s=19
https://twitter.com/Number10cat/status/1331367021192368131
https://twitter.com/Variety/status/1332305379682881537?s=20
Duncan Smith and Corbyn by the party memberships.
Your point being?
https://twitter.com/JWhittlesElbow/status/1332393267120517123
Up popped Jan Smuts.
I wondered if might be one of the Confederate States of America members...
In important news, 85 to get off 8 overs. That’s not impossible but these two have to bat through if that’s to happen. Morgan might help but then it’s the Curran brothers...
Now: We will probably settle the market based on the ECV meeting.
I'm glad I have cashed out as best I can.
For 2024 BF need a whole new set of POTUS rules.
I'm on sound ground.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.170211116
Lucius Lamar was a colonel but I don’t think he saw any action.
Which leaves William Lyne Wilson, postmaster general in Cleveland’s second term and previously a private in the 12th Virginia Cavalry.
Edit - also Hilary A Herbert, Secretary of the Navy 1893-97 (again under Cleveland) Colonel of the 8th Alabama Infantry.
For all who missed it well worth watching. Steve McQueen 'Mangrove'
(PS Why cant Johnson be interviewed without appearing in fancy dress? Today he was a lab technician.)
'This is Great Britain, a white country, what is happening to us, for fuck's sake? We need to vote for Enoch Powell, he's a great man, speaking truth. Vote for Enoch, he's our man, he's on our side, he'll look after us. I want all of you here to vote for Enoch, support him, he's on our side. Enoch for Prime Minister! Throw the wogs out! Keep Britain white!'
(this is only a small part of what might reasonably called a filthy racist diatribe)
https://tinyurl.com/y3olxt56