Trade with the EU is a depreciating asset. An ever less significant part of the total pie of the world economy. Divergence will probably make sense soon, regardless of cost.
Do you think the same argument works for Scotland or Wales vis-a-vis England?
Not really. For one thing England writes a huge cheque to both every year. In our relationship with the EU the subsidy has gone other way.
Managed divergence means divergence in real terms because the potential gains in terms of trade with the growing bits will outweigh the penalty of diverging with an ever smaller part of the pie.
In what way will divergence help increase trade? There are two possibilities: we lower our standards, or we align our standards with another large power in the hope of increasing bilateral trade. Which one do you think we should do?
I don;t know, but I can see why it makes sense to agree to managed divergence with the EU, given what will transpire in trade trends over the coming years.
"Managed divergence" is a Brexiteer-friendly way of branding managed convergence.
I do not think so - it means exactly what it says
Shutting down businesses which trade with Europe ?
You know that is not what I mean and on the signature of a deal we need to move on
It will be one way in which we diverge, and for those businesses, 'moving on' will mean something rather different than it does to you.
I do wonder - if Boris gets a deal, and things carry on broadly as before in terms of trade with the EU, will that weaken the sense of grievance amongst a certain softer part of the Scottish independence vote?
The paradox is that the closer the deal, the less reason there is for breaking away from the UK, but the more practical independence becomes. With No Deal, Scotland rejoining the EU would mean quite a hard border with England, which many would baulk at if it came to it.
Mr. Z, his father was from Macedon and his mother from Epirus. And he was king of Macedon.
Greece at the time was a collection of city-states. There was Athens. It happened to be in Attica, but Attica wasn't the political bloc. Likewise Sparta and Lacedaemon(ia?).
The Hellenistic culture certainly was a great factor in Macedon, and Epirus, but that doesn't make them Greek, anymore than English-speaking Australians are British.
The Olympic Games argument is an interesting one I haven't heard before. It seems like (again, just quickly checking Wikipedia) that those from Greek-founded cities could participate. That would presumably include residents of Tarentum, a city founded as Taras by Greeks and under Roman sway for centuries.
Well some good points, except the same people who are asking you to believe the 2020 election was free and fair are asking you to believe the 2016 election was completely bent and decided by interference from Russia, and that the President who won that election was and remains a Russian asset.
I'm sure you will forgive my questioning them.
I don't agree with you on very much, but I think you have a valid point there. Obviously there's a big difference of degree between the two (arguing that voters were influenced by interference by Russia or whatever is different from arguing that the actual votes cast were illegal or not correctly counted), but the Democrats set a bad precedent in not really accepting that Trump's 2016 victory was entirely legitimate, which they then made worse with the ridiculous impeachment attempt.
Astonishing (!) post from you. As in, I'm astonished. There's no equivalence at all here. Serious Russian interference in 16 is a proven fact. Serious voter fraud in 20 is a proven nonsense. Trump & Co are saying 20 is flat out illegitimate and refusing the result. The Dems conceded 16 promptly and accepted the result. Trump was impeached for an impeachable offence that the evidence says he committed. He was acquitted for partisan reasons only. As the Dems knew he would be. Hence why they were reluctant to do it.
Well, I specifically said there wasn't equivalence, but, leaving that aside:
Russian attempts at interference are a proven fact (and nothing new, of course). Whether Russian interference actually achieved anything is completely unclear, but even if it did, there is still the rather vital point that US electors cast those votes for Trump, not Russian bots, and so the point of the complaints can only be that Trump voters were so stupid that they allowed themselves to be influenced by those bots and that, therefore, the election wasn't legitimate.
Do you not see a smidgen of a problem with telling voters that they were illegally influenced by Putin, which implies that their votes were worth less than those of nice East and West coast liberals? Or even a problem with telling yourself that?
Mr. Z, his father was from Macedon and his mother from Epirus. And he was king of Macedon.
Greece at the time was a collection of city-states. There was Athens. It happened to be in Attica, but Attica wasn't the political bloc. Likewise Sparta and Lacedaemon(ia?).
The Hellenistic culture certainly was a great factor in Macedon, and Epirus, but that doesn't make them Greek, anymore than English-speaking Australians are British.
The Olympic Games argument is an interesting one I haven't heard before. It seems like (again, just quickly checking Wikipedia) that those from Greek-founded cities could participate. That would presumably include residents of Tarentum, a city founded as Taras by Greeks and under Roman sway for centuries.
But it's only Alexander's Greece that still exists in any sense. The Greece before Alexander is gone.
I was thinking you mean violent crime of the sort disproportionately committed by black people, no?
I was deliberately vague, but was thinking of that section of drug and violent crime committed by youth gangs. I think most people would have an idea of what the term meant and would probably accept that it exists, and that it should be tackled. But calling it Black Crime would be totally unhelpful in trying to fight it.
Ok. I see the point you're making. If a term hinders rather than helps, don't use it. Fine as a generalism.
But that's as far as I'd go with the example. Because Black Crime, as such, does not exist in the way that White Privilege does. BC is a shorthand for "violent street crimes disproportionately committed by young black men". For BC to be an equivalent term to WP, it would mean that ALL such crimes are committed by young black men, that every young black man commits them, and that young men who are not black could not commit one even of they tried.
We were talking at cross purposes. And why not. I love talking at cross purposes.
I learnt this morning from the Canary woman that black people can have White Privilege, so I don't see why Black Crime can't be committed by white youths.
Your intention here is clearly to mock "Canary Woman" and her outre offering. Fine, she maybe merits it, but in doing so you have succumbed to that often spotted creature in any PB debate about race - the facetious tangential. Because we've established you weren't equating WP to BC in that way. Your point was just about the potentially negative impact of a term on a debate. Hence why I said "fine".
Mr. Z, his father was from Macedon and his mother from Epirus. And he was king of Macedon.
Greece at the time was a collection of city-states. There was Athens. It happened to be in Attica, but Attica wasn't the political bloc. Likewise Sparta and Lacedaemon(ia?).
The Hellenistic culture certainly was a great factor in Macedon, and Epirus, but that doesn't make them Greek, anymore than English-speaking Australians are British.
The Olympic Games argument is an interesting one I haven't heard before. It seems like (again, just quickly checking Wikipedia) that those from Greek-founded cities could participate. That would presumably include residents of Tarentum, a city founded as Taras by Greeks and under Roman sway for centuries.
Edited extra bit: hmm.
Surely though, as neither slavs, nor Bulgars, nor Albanians had arrived in the land that we know as Macedonia, the ethnicity, culture and language of Alexander's Macedon was Greek?
Dr. Foxy, I'd probably want to check for Odrysian, Illrian, and Persian influences. Also, Australia has a largely British culture, ethnicity, and language.
Must say I find Mr. Z's Olympics argument quite interesting.
Mr. Z, his father was from Macedon and his mother from Epirus. And he was king of Macedon.
Greece at the time was a collection of city-states. There was Athens. It happened to be in Attica, but Attica wasn't the political bloc. Likewise Sparta and Lacedaemon(ia?).
The Hellenistic culture certainly was a great factor in Macedon, and Epirus, but that doesn't make them Greek, anymore than English-speaking Australians are British.
The Olympic Games argument is an interesting one I haven't heard before. It seems like (again, just quickly checking Wikipedia) that those from Greek-founded cities could participate. That would presumably include residents of Tarentum, a city founded as Taras by Greeks and under Roman sway for centuries.
Edited extra bit: hmm.
Surely though, as neither slavs, nor Bulgars, nor Albanians had arrived in the land that we know as Macedonia, the ethnicity, culture and language of Alexander's Macedon was Greek?
Not the same language
My grandfather was once invited to give a speech in Athens
Being fairly well educated he gave the speech in Greek. Unfortunately he didn’t realise there was a difference between ancient and modern Greek... the only person who understood him was the British ambassador 😂
Mr. Z, his father was from Macedon and his mother from Epirus. And he was king of Macedon.
Greece at the time was a collection of city-states. There was Athens. It happened to be in Attica, but Attica wasn't the political bloc. Likewise Sparta and Lacedaemon(ia?).
The Hellenistic culture certainly was a great factor in Macedon, and Epirus, but that doesn't make them Greek, anymore than English-speaking Australians are British.
The Olympic Games argument is an interesting one I haven't heard before. It seems like (again, just quickly checking Wikipedia) that those from Greek-founded cities could participate. That would presumably include residents of Tarentum, a city founded as Taras by Greeks and under Roman sway for centuries.
Edited extra bit: hmm.
Surely though, as neither slavs, nor Bulgars, nor Albanians had arrived in the land that we know as Macedonia, the ethnicity, culture and language of Alexander's Macedon was Greek?
Not the same language
My grandfather was once invited to give a speech in Athens
Being fairly well educated he gave the speech in Greek. Unfortunately he didn’t realise there was a difference between ancient and modern Greek... the only person who understood him was the British ambassador 😂
Trade with the EU is a depreciating asset. An ever less significant part of the total pie of the world economy. Divergence will probably make sense soon, regardless of cost.
Do you think the same argument works for Scotland or Wales vis-a-vis England?
Not really. For one thing England writes a huge cheque to both every year. In our relationship with the EU the subsidy has gone other way.
Managed divergence means divergence in real terms because the potential gains in terms of trade with the growing bits will outweigh the penalty of diverging with an ever smaller part of the pie.
In what way will divergence help increase trade? There are two possibilities: we lower our standards, or we align our standards with another large power in the hope of increasing bilateral trade. Which one do you think we should do?
Reducing the cost base and making UK exports more competitive globally, also allowing us to strike bilateral trade deals in services with other advanced nations to get mutual recognition of qualifications and certifications.
The EU is just one market and it's not even a very important one globally speaking. Their continued attempts to become a regulatory exporter keep failing, they've once again given up with the UK where they started with all trade depending on 100% alignment forever with EU standards to now saying an arbitration process can set tariffs if there is sufficient divergence from the current levels which are going to be written into the treaty.
Reducing the cost base? How will we do that in a way that we couldn't before Brexit?
You really need to move on
Brexit is happening and it looks like a deal is on the cusp of being signed
You are beginning to sound like the Japanese soldier who refused to surrender and spent 29 years in the jungle as he did not believe the war had ended
Once a deal is signed the vast majority of the country will sigh a sigh of relief and move on
Ok. But "move on" shouldn't mean be so overcome with relief at getting a Deal that one doesn't bother assessing it in detail.
Especially since as I've posted for so long - posted and posted and posted till I'm blue of face and red of fingers - that said relief has been deliberately manufactured by Johnson & Co hyping up the Never Happening event of No Deal almost until the second he signs the one he has inevitably agreed.
Just when you thought that you could no longer be surprised by the government's Brexit looniness, they come up with this world-class humdinger of insanity:
Since when do law and advice have to coincide? It’s legal to drink fifty bottles of wine in one sitting, for example.
I don't understand, I expect the government to tell me exactly every single thing I can do minute to minute across my whole life....i am unable to work out any personal responsibility...its too confusing....
The media really do seem to think this is the case.
Now, I am going to put the kettle on, I need the look up on the government website to.check what the law is on how much to fill it.
Mr. Z, his father was from Macedon and his mother from Epirus. And he was king of Macedon.
Greece at the time was a collection of city-states. There was Athens. It happened to be in Attica, but Attica wasn't the political bloc. Likewise Sparta and Lacedaemon(ia?).
The Hellenistic culture certainly was a great factor in Macedon, and Epirus, but that doesn't make them Greek, anymore than English-speaking Australians are British.
The Olympic Games argument is an interesting one I haven't heard before. It seems like (again, just quickly checking Wikipedia) that those from Greek-founded cities could participate. That would presumably include residents of Tarentum, a city founded as Taras by Greeks and under Roman sway for centuries.
Edited extra bit: hmm.
Surely though, as neither slavs, nor Bulgars, nor Albanians had arrived in the land that we know as Macedonia, the ethnicity, culture and language of Alexander's Macedon was Greek?
Not the same language
My grandfather was once invited to give a speech in Athens
Being fairly well educated he gave the speech in Greek. Unfortunately he didn’t realise there was a difference between ancient and modern Greek... the only person who understood him was the British ambassador 😂
Great story. Peak Charles?
If I had told you all of the details that might have been "Peak Charles"...
Mr. Urquhart, isn't it a matter of historical agreement that one of the Aishas was, shall we say, on the young side?
A problem with the censorious approach taken by the media (ITV did likewise over some tweet or other in the dim and distant past) is that it becomes impossible to assess whether it's a witch hunt or genuine case of bigotry. The ITV story, from memory, was about a celebrity or somesuch who had said something racist, but they didn't indicate whatsoever what the comment was. So how can it be judged whether punitive consequences are valid or not?
Burchill might have simply related a commonly agreed fact on the age of one of Mohammed's wives. Or she might have gone much further. But reporting condemnation in full whilst not presenting the evidence means the audience is left with half the argument. It's the approach of a Witchsmeller Pursuivant.
"My lord, will you force us to listen to the pleadings of a man who might be a witch himself?"
"Good point. That concludes the case for the defence."
Historicity is not defence, in the view of some.
A while back, it was argued that it was racist to publish *translations* of some of the stuff published in the Arab world. Which was full of racism against Jews.
The argument was interesting - the outlets themselves censor this stuff (or used to) when publishing in English. So they have some kind of right-to-be-racist in the privacy of their own language.
Trade with the EU is a depreciating asset. An ever less significant part of the total pie of the world economy. Divergence will probably make sense soon, regardless of cost.
Do you think the same argument works for Scotland or Wales vis-a-vis England?
Not really. For one thing England writes a huge cheque to both every year. In our relationship with the EU the subsidy has gone other way.
Managed divergence means divergence in real terms because the potential gains in terms of trade with the growing bits will outweigh the penalty of diverging with an ever smaller part of the pie.
In what way will divergence help increase trade? There are two possibilities: we lower our standards, or we align our standards with another large power in the hope of increasing bilateral trade. Which one do you think we should do?
Reducing the cost base and making UK exports more competitive globally, also allowing us to strike bilateral trade deals in services with other advanced nations to get mutual recognition of qualifications and certifications.
The EU is just one market and it's not even a very important one globally speaking. Their continued attempts to become a regulatory exporter keep failing, they've once again given up with the UK where they started with all trade depending on 100% alignment forever with EU standards to now saying an arbitration process can set tariffs if there is sufficient divergence from the current levels which are going to be written into the treaty.
Reducing the cost base? How will we do that in a way that we couldn't before Brexit?
You really need to move on
Brexit is happening and it looks like a deal is on the cusp of being signed
You are beginning to sound like the Japanese soldier who refused to surrender and spent 29 years in the jungle as he did not believe the war had ended
Once a deal is signed the vast majority of the country will sigh a sigh of relief and move on
Ok. But "move on" shouldn't mean be so overcome with relief at getting a Deal that one doesn't bother assessing it in detail.
Especially since as I've posted for so long - posted and posted and posted till I'm blue of face and red of fingers - that said relief has been deliberately manufactured by Johnson & Co hyping up the Never Happening event of No Deal almost until the second he signs the one he has inevitably agreed.
Lot of truth in that to be fair but I do think the public will move on
Mr. Z, his father was from Macedon and his mother from Epirus. And he was king of Macedon.
Greece at the time was a collection of city-states. There was Athens. It happened to be in Attica, but Attica wasn't the political bloc. Likewise Sparta and Lacedaemon(ia?).
The Hellenistic culture certainly was a great factor in Macedon, and Epirus, but that doesn't make them Greek, anymore than English-speaking Australians are British.
The Olympic Games argument is an interesting one I haven't heard before. It seems like (again, just quickly checking Wikipedia) that those from Greek-founded cities could participate. That would presumably include residents of Tarentum, a city founded as Taras by Greeks and under Roman sway for centuries.
Edited extra bit: hmm.
Surely though, as neither slavs, nor Bulgars, nor Albanians had arrived in the land that we know as Macedonia, the ethnicity, culture and language of Alexander's Macedon was Greek?
Not the same language
My grandfather was once invited to give a speech in Athens
Being fairly well educated he gave the speech in Greek. Unfortunately he didn’t realise there was a difference between ancient and modern Greek... the only person who understood him was the British ambassador 😂
Great story. Peak Charles?
If I had told you all of the details that might have been "Peak Charles"...
Mr. Malmesbury, that sounds insane. It prohibits discussion of historical facts because they don't, or may not, tally with modern morality.
Imposing modern norms on the past leads to revisionism of history, rewriting it to be more currently convenient and throwing out irksome accuracies. It leads to bullshit like the Common Era nonsense.
Trade with the EU is a depreciating asset. An ever less significant part of the total pie of the world economy. Divergence will probably make sense soon, regardless of cost.
Do you think the same argument works for Scotland or Wales vis-a-vis England?
Not really. For one thing England writes a huge cheque to both every year. In our relationship with the EU the subsidy has gone other way.
Managed divergence means divergence in real terms because the potential gains in terms of trade with the growing bits will outweigh the penalty of diverging with an ever smaller part of the pie.
In what way will divergence help increase trade? There are two possibilities: we lower our standards, or we align our standards with another large power in the hope of increasing bilateral trade. Which one do you think we should do?
I don;t know, but I can see why it makes sense to agree to managed divergence with the EU, given what will transpire in trade trends over the coming years.
"Managed divergence" is a Brexiteer-friendly way of branding managed convergence.
No it really isn't. The EU will continue to be an ever reducing part of our export markets and the important point is that they will now no longer be able to dictate what our standards are and how we trade with the other 93% of the world.
It is an almost universal rule that countries trade the most with their closest neighbours. Unless you plan on relocating the UK, the EU is always going to have a huge impact on us and be the principal destination for imports and exports.
Just when you thought that you could no longer be surprised by the government's Brexit looniness, they come up with this world-class humdinger of insanity:
Since when do law and advice have to coincide? It’s legal to drink fifty bottles of wine in one sitting, for example.
I don't understand, I expect the government to tell me exactly every single thing I can do minute to minute across my whole life....i am unable to work out any personal responsibility...its too confusing....
The media really do seem to think this is the case.
Now, I am going to put the kettle on, I need the look up on the government website to.check what the law is on how much to fill it.
Yes, and if the government did it differently, the media would switch to their other default setting of bitching on about the Nanny State, the government micro-managing our lives, and Boris grinding Magna Carta into the dust.
Just when you thought that you could no longer be surprised by the government's Brexit looniness, they come up with this world-class humdinger of insanity:
Serious question Richard, is it really as ridiculous as you're making it sound. Presumably there are legal and policy issues related to activities, social conditions, employment law etc... that will take part within those parts of the Chunnel that are under UK J&C that do not require ECJ jurisdiction for the Chunnel to function and where some divergence of practice has no impact on the performance of the tunnel. Or am I misreading what this covers?
So it looks like we've found BoJo's "win", the EU won't take unilateral action but there will be a disputes mechanism setup which amounts to basically the same thing, protection of the single market - if I am understanding the Tweets correctly
It's an absolutely massive concession from the EU. Now there will be rules and arbitration on tariff setting and a standards baseline to work from. It's literally everything we've been asking for on the LPF, freedom to diverge, freedom to not follow new EU standards without any repercussions, arbitration led tariffs following treaty rules where divergence from treaty standards are considered in breach by either party, neither party able to easily regress from current standards.
Honestly, it's great and if we don't sign this deal then the government clearly never wanted a deal in the first place. It's everything we ever wanted.
Why it was beyond May and Bobbins Robbins to achieve is amongst the great mysteries of the ages...
Interesting. Checked Wikipedia, and apparently there's lots of arguments over the age.
Not that Wikipedia's always right. It thinks Alexander was Greek...
You'd have us argue that the British Empire was in fact Norman though on that basis.
He may not have been Greek, but his legacy clearly is.
Surely the British Empire was Norman? They conquered us and then just kept on conquering! The Tory party is clearly the Norman party too.
It is one of the arguments I have with Scots about their claims that it was 'the English' who conquered and oppressed them. What they forget is that before they were conquered and oppressed by the Norman elite, the same thing had happened to the English. They were the first victims of the Norman Empire.
So it looks like we've found BoJo's "win", the EU won't take unilateral action but there will be a disputes mechanism setup which amounts to basically the same thing, protection of the single market - if I am understanding the Tweets correctly
Which is fine. If there is no material divergence the issue does not arise. If there is it will be looked at on a case by case basis with some sort of impartial adjudication. I don’t think that we could ask for more than that.
Well, apparently we did ask for more, namely the ability to ignore future EU rule changes without consequence. Did it really have to take this long to meet somewhere in the middle?
It seems kind of obvious doesn't it? We cannot be compelled to follow the EU into more bureaucracy but we don't get a free pass if we don't. Seems fair to me and we really should have got to this point a good year ago. Here's hoping it is finalised soon.
What do you mean follow the EU into more bureaucracy? Its the UK about to tie the UK up with masses of red tape not the other way round. The Single Market abolishes red tape, it doesn't create it.
Sky news already and predictably saying TOOOOOOO CONFUSING....
Its just too confusing to have legal rules and guidance.
Ah, is that Burley’s new excuse?
She is in exile in Africa and off Sky for six months, but I expect she will not reappear with Sky in the future
She will be back, great suntan with several hours of ‘in depth investigations’ ready to go. Rigby will so so be back, you, I’m afraidyou aren’t recognizing the investment Sky have in her.
Sky news already and predictably saying TOOOOOOO CONFUSING....
Its just too confusing to have legal rules and guidance.
THE LAW: Do this legal thing THE ADVICE: Don't do this legal thing despite all the times we have not only told you to do it but done everything possible to make it easier for you
Interesting. Checked Wikipedia, and apparently there's lots of arguments over the age.
Not that Wikipedia's always right. It thinks Alexander was Greek...
You'd have us argue that the British Empire was in fact Norman though on that basis.
He may not have been Greek, but his legacy clearly is.
Surely the British Empire was Norman? They conquered us and then just kept on conquering! The Tory party is clearly the Norman party too.
It is one of the arguments I have with Scots about their claims that it was 'the English' who conquered and oppressed them. What they forget is that before they were conquered and oppressed by the Norman elite, the same thing had happened to the English. They were the first victims of the Norman Empire.
The Scots were never conquered! Agree on the Normans though, time to throw off the yoke.
I like being privileged. I enjoy the privileges I have, and I'm excited about the thought of accruing more privileges as I go through life. I don't wish others were less privileged so I could be more privileged - that seems like screwed up logic.
Congratulations on finding a new way of spectacularly missing the point on the issue of white privilege, a significant achievement given the wide range of bone-headed responses we've already seen on this topic here.
We await your insightful contributions with interest.
I've said loads on this topic, I feel like a broken record. Bottom line - living in a multiracial household I belive white privilege to be real, I have seen it in action. It is one of many ways (like class or sex) that some groups are treated better than others in ways that are unconnected to their talents or intrinsic worth. To be honest, it surprises me that people find it controversial and put so much effort into proving it doesn't exist, rather than listening to those who say it has affected them and finding ways of making society fairer.
The idea of white privilege is (afaik) that white people communicating with other white people benefit from a sort of unconscious shortcut of supposed familiarity and approbation. So is the 'solution' to this problem that white people should be more suspicious and disapproving of each other? How would that help society? The problem is not white people being too privileged, it is non-white people not being privileged enough, and therefore the solution does not lie in attacking white privilege, but building non-white privilege. See also every other problem based on 'those people' having 'too much'. That's why white privilege being a problem is an absurdity.
This is not the idea, no. White Privilege refers to the fact that in Western society by and large a white person may face many challenges and obstacles in life but their skin colour will not be one of them. They quite literally never have to think about it in the way that many others have to all or most or much the time. This is a privilege in the true sense of the word since it is relative to others and is not earned. Its oddity (as a privilege) is that it applies to a majority, which could be why it jars. Speaking personally, I find it a useful and powerful way of looking at the race issue. It brings it home rather keeping it at arms length.
'Quite literally never have to think about it'? Perhaps that was true once, but not after the super-saturation of wokeness throughout our entire media and popular culture. One can't even watch a football match without having the rituals of wokeness performed in front of you, so it's really quite hard to avoid these days.
I struggle to see you with your Latin and your ancient wit & wisdoms in true simpatico with the Proud Boys down in The Den.
Eh? Julius Caesar redefined Latin prose style - plus managed a few other minor achievements along the way - but that didn't stop him mixing it up with the plebs against the grave, out-of-touch optimates.
Mr. Z, his father was from Macedon and his mother from Epirus. And he was king of Macedon.
Greece at the time was a collection of city-states. There was Athens. It happened to be in Attica, but Attica wasn't the political bloc. Likewise Sparta and Lacedaemon(ia?).
The Hellenistic culture certainly was a great factor in Macedon, and Epirus, but that doesn't make them Greek, anymore than English-speaking Australians are British.
The Olympic Games argument is an interesting one I haven't heard before. It seems like (again, just quickly checking Wikipedia) that those from Greek-founded cities could participate. That would presumably include residents of Tarentum, a city founded as Taras by Greeks and under Roman sway for centuries.
Edited extra bit: hmm.
Surely though, as neither slavs, nor Bulgars, nor Albanians had arrived in the land that we know as Macedonia, the ethnicity, culture and language of Alexander's Macedon was Greek?
Not the same language
My grandfather was once invited to give a speech in Athens
Being fairly well educated he gave the speech in Greek. Unfortunately he didn’t realise there was a difference between ancient and modern Greek... the only person who understood him was the British ambassador 😂
Great story. Peak Charles?
If I had told you all of the details that might have been "Peak Charles"...
Just when you thought that you could no longer be surprised by the government's Brexit looniness, they come up with this world-class humdinger of insanity:
Serious question Richard, is it really as ridiculous as you're making it sound. Presumably there are legal and policy issues related to activities, social conditions, employment law etc... that will take part within those parts of the Chunnel that are under UK J&C that do not require ECJ jurisdiction for the Chunnel to function and where some divergence of practice has no impact on the performance of the tunnel. Or am I misreading what this covers?
Health and safety, for example. If the EU, or an ECJ ruling, says that EU safety regulations have changed so as to outlaw some goods which currently can be carried, what on earth is the UK going to do to avoid 'dynamic alignment' with that ruling? Stop the train half way through the tunnel and chuck those chemicals on to the track?
If you think that is good camouflage, then try this - entered into my facebook Moth Group's photo competition. Knot Grass moth, by Paul Coombes
That's pretty good. But it is a bit smaller than the owl.
I never think of German Shepherds (Alsatians) as being particularly well camouflaged, but this time of year going through the underbrush in the woods, it can be really hard to spot them.
Sky news already and predictably saying TOOOOOOO CONFUSING....
Its just too confusing to have legal rules and guidance.
THE LAW: Do this legal thing THE ADVICE: Don't do this legal thing despite all the times we have not only told you to do it but done everything possible to make it easier for you
Technically you mean, don’t do this illegal thing
Or, even more technically, do this illegal thing and here are the consequences
Sky news already and predictably saying TOOOOOOO CONFUSING....
Its just too confusing to have legal rules and guidance.
Ah, is that Burley’s new excuse?
She is in exile in Africa and off Sky for six months, but I expect she will not reappear with Sky in the future
She will be back, great suntan with several hours of ‘in depth investigations’ ready to go. Rigby will so so be back, you, I’m afraidyou aren’t recognizing the investment Sky have in her.
She is discredited to the point her USP would be pure hypocrisy
Interesting. Checked Wikipedia, and apparently there's lots of arguments over the age.
Not that Wikipedia's always right. It thinks Alexander was Greek...
You'd have us argue that the British Empire was in fact Norman though on that basis.
He may not have been Greek, but his legacy clearly is.
Surely the British Empire was Norman? They conquered us and then just kept on conquering! The Tory party is clearly the Norman party too.
It is one of the arguments I have with Scots about their claims that it was 'the English' who conquered and oppressed them. What they forget is that before they were conquered and oppressed by the Norman elite, the same thing had happened to the English. They were the first victims of the Norman Empire.
England was first conquered by the Anglo Saxons before the Normans however, Scotland was never fully conquered by the Saxons apart from the southeast which was part of the Kingdom of Northumbria. The rest of it was a mix of Celts and Gaelic settlers from Ireland.
Scotland also kept separate monarchs from England for centuries after the Norman conquest of England, unlike Wales which was united under the crown of England by the 13th century the English and Scottish crowns were not united until the 18th century.
Sky news already and predictably saying TOOOOOOO CONFUSING....
Its just too confusing to have legal rules and guidance.
THE LAW: Do this legal thing THE ADVICE: Don't do this legal thing despite all the times we have not only told you to do it but done everything possible to make it easier for you
What are you on about? The law on this doesn't compel you to do anything at all.
Well some good points, except the same people who are asking you to believe the 2020 election was free and fair are asking you to believe the 2016 election was completely bent and decided by interference from Russia, and that the President who won that election was and remains a Russian asset.
I'm sure you will forgive my questioning them.
I don't agree with you on very much, but I think you have a valid point there. Obviously there's a big difference of degree between the two (arguing that voters were influenced by interference by Russia or whatever is different from arguing that the actual votes cast were illegal or not correctly counted), but the Democrats set a bad precedent in not really accepting that Trump's 2016 victory was entirely legitimate, which they then made worse with the ridiculous impeachment attempt.
Astonishing (!) post from you. As in, I'm astonished. There's no equivalence at all here. Serious Russian interference in 16 is a proven fact. Serious voter fraud in 20 is a proven nonsense. Trump & Co are saying 20 is flat out illegitimate and refusing the result. The Dems conceded 16 promptly and accepted the result. Trump was impeached for an impeachable offence that the evidence says he committed. He was acquitted for partisan reasons only. As the Dems knew he would be. Hence why they were reluctant to do it.
Well, I specifically said there wasn't equivalence, but, leaving that aside:
Russian attempts at interference are a proven fact (and nothing new, of course). Whether Russian interference actually achieved anything is completely unclear, but even if it did, there is still the rather vital point that US electors cast those votes for Trump, not Russian bots, and so the point of the complaints can only be that Trump voters were so stupid that they allowed themselves to be influenced by those bots and that, therefore, the election wasn't legitimate.
Do you not see a smidgen of a problem with telling voters that they were illegally influenced by Putin, which implies that their votes were worth less than those of nice East and West coast liberals? Or even a problem with telling yourself that?
I wouldn't tell any individual Trump voter that, no. Course I wouldn't. Insulting and most probably also untrue for any particular person. But neither would I keep shtum about the Russian interference for fear of offending Trump voters either en masse or as individuals. This would be patronizing in itself. You have to assume people can handle the truth, presented in its context, without them flying off the handle.
Mr. Z, his father was from Macedon and his mother from Epirus. And he was king of Macedon.
Greece at the time was a collection of city-states. There was Athens. It happened to be in Attica, but Attica wasn't the political bloc. Likewise Sparta and Lacedaemon(ia?).
The Hellenistic culture certainly was a great factor in Macedon, and Epirus, but that doesn't make them Greek, anymore than English-speaking Australians are British.
The Olympic Games argument is an interesting one I haven't heard before. It seems like (again, just quickly checking Wikipedia) that those from Greek-founded cities could participate. That would presumably include residents of Tarentum, a city founded as Taras by Greeks and under Roman sway for centuries.
Edited extra bit: hmm.
Surely though, as neither slavs, nor Bulgars, nor Albanians had arrived in the land that we know as Macedonia, the ethnicity, culture and language of Alexander's Macedon was Greek?
Not the same language
My grandfather was once invited to give a speech in Athens
Being fairly well educated he gave the speech in Greek. Unfortunately he didn’t realise there was a difference between ancient and modern Greek... the only person who understood him was the British ambassador 😂
Now that's how it's done! I suppose it's too much to hope that a text of the speech survives?
Sky news already and predictably saying TOOOOOOO CONFUSING....
Its just too confusing to have legal rules and guidance.
Ah, is that Burley’s new excuse?
She is in exile in Africa and off Sky for six months, but I expect she will not reappear with Sky in the future
She will be back, great suntan with several hours of ‘in depth investigations’ ready to go. Rigby will so so be back, you, I’m afraidyou aren’t recognizing the investment Sky have in her.
She was out on her arse for a very small breach of coronavirus regs. I wouldn't put much hope in her returning to a high profile position after this is over.
Interesting. Checked Wikipedia, and apparently there's lots of arguments over the age.
Not that Wikipedia's always right. It thinks Alexander was Greek...
You'd have us argue that the British Empire was in fact Norman though on that basis.
He may not have been Greek, but his legacy clearly is.
Surely the British Empire was Norman? They conquered us and then just kept on conquering! The Tory party is clearly the Norman party too.
It is one of the arguments I have with Scots about their claims that it was 'the English' who conquered and oppressed them. What they forget is that before they were conquered and oppressed by the Norman elite, the same thing had happened to the English. They were the first victims of the Norman Empire.
England was first conquered by the Anglo Saxons before the Normans however, Scotland was never fully conquered by the Saxons apart from the southeast which was part of the Kingdom of Northumbria. The rest of it was a mix of Celts and Gaelic settlers from Ireland.
Scotland also kept separate monarchs from England for centuries after the Norman conquest of England, unlike Wales which was united under the crown of England by the 13th century the English and Scottish crowns were not united until the 18th century.
You're forgetting the Picts, Mesolithic, Normans, Norwegians, Danes, Frisians, etc. etcv.
No, I wasn't able to make a cup of tea, I couldn't find any laws on kettle filling and the guidance was too confusing...so I am going to have to go to Starbucks to buy one.
Mr. Malmesbury, that sounds insane. It prohibits discussion of historical facts because they don't, or may not, tally with modern morality.
Imposing modern norms on the past leads to revisionism of history, rewriting it to be more currently convenient and throwing out irksome accuracies. It leads to bullshit like the Common Era nonsense.
I was told at a seminar on workplace behaviour that (for example) some the facts of the case regarding Oscar Wilde are not mentionable - and are indeed homophobic.
No, I wasn't able to make a cup of tea, I couldn't find any laws on kettle filling and the guidance was too confusing...so I am going to have to go to Starbucks to buy one.
Hadn't you better check what the law says on that, too?
Interesting. Checked Wikipedia, and apparently there's lots of arguments over the age.
Not that Wikipedia's always right. It thinks Alexander was Greek...
You'd have us argue that the British Empire was in fact Norman though on that basis.
He may not have been Greek, but his legacy clearly is.
Surely the British Empire was Norman? They conquered us and then just kept on conquering! The Tory party is clearly the Norman party too.
It is one of the arguments I have with Scots about their claims that it was 'the English' who conquered and oppressed them. What they forget is that before they were conquered and oppressed by the Norman elite, the same thing had happened to the English. They were the first victims of the Norman Empire.
Similarly I have often pointed out that Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke aka "Strongbow", the man who was effectively the advance party for Henry II's invasion of Ireland in 1170, was a French speaking Norman who lived in Wales.
Mr. Malmesbury, that sounds insane. It prohibits discussion of historical facts because they don't, or may not, tally with modern morality.
Imposing modern norms on the past leads to revisionism of history, rewriting it to be more currently convenient and throwing out irksome accuracies. It leads to bullshit like the Common Era nonsense.
I was told at a seminar on workplace behaviour that (for example) some the facts of the case regarding Oscar Wilde are not mentionable - and are indeed homophobic.
IN what context are they not mentionable? Presumably an academic historian would be able to narrate them in a book on the case?
No, I wasn't able to make a cup of tea, I couldn't find any laws on kettle filling and the guidance was too confusing...so I am going to have to go to Starbucks to buy one.
Hadn't you better check what the law says on that, too?
Mr. HYUFD, point of order: England was created by the Anglo-Saxons.
There were Anglo Saxon Kingdoms eg Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria even Essex and Kent at one time along with Viking rule in the North before a period before England was created too but the Celtic population of England was largely pushed north towards Scotland and West towards Wales by the Saxons
I do wonder - if Boris gets a deal, and things carry on broadly as before in terms of trade with the EU, will that weaken the sense of grievance amongst a certain softer part of the Scottish independence vote?
The paradox is that the closer the deal, the less reason there is for breaking away from the UK, but the more practical independence becomes. With No Deal, Scotland rejoining the EU would mean quite a hard border with England, which many would baulk at if it came to it.
Yes. The desirability and difficulty of Sindy from the Scottish perspective looks on the face of it to be correlated.
I suppose in an analogy this Christmas law and advice is similar to a speed limit. Yes, you can legally drive at 60mph on many single track country lanes, but to do so would be extremely risky.
Those people from the past, refusing to conform to modern views. The swine!
More seriously, it's vital we remember the screw-ups of the past to avoid them in the future without needing to suffer the pain of experiencing them in the present.
I suppose in an analogy this Christmas law and advice is similar to a speed limit. Yes, you can legally drive at 60mph on many single track country lanes, but to do so would be extremely risky.
Wooo hold on their buddy....that requires common sense and personal responsibility.... impossible.
Mr. Malmesbury, that sounds insane. It prohibits discussion of historical facts because they don't, or may not, tally with modern morality.
Imposing modern norms on the past leads to revisionism of history, rewriting it to be more currently convenient and throwing out irksome accuracies. It leads to bullshit like the Common Era nonsense.
I was told at a seminar on workplace behaviour that (for example) some the facts of the case regarding Oscar Wilde are not mentionable - and are indeed homophobic.
IN what context are they not mentionable? Presumably an academic historian would be able to narrate them in a book on the case?
Saying in a conversation something like "Oscar Wilde would have got life, these days". Apparently, he is an icon of persecution, so attributing certain behaviour to him is attacking an icon. Hence attacking a community.
I suppose in an analogy this Christmas law and advice is similar to a speed limit. Yes, you can legally drive at 60mph on many single track country lanes, but to do so would be extremely risky.
Wooo hold on their buddy....that requires common sense and personal responsibility.... impossible.
Sadly all too true when you see some nutcases on the rural roads around here.
Mr. Malmesbury, that sounds insane. It prohibits discussion of historical facts because they don't, or may not, tally with modern morality.
Imposing modern norms on the past leads to revisionism of history, rewriting it to be more currently convenient and throwing out irksome accuracies. It leads to bullshit like the Common Era nonsense.
I was told at a seminar on workplace behaviour that (for example) some the facts of the case regarding Oscar Wilde are not mentionable - and are indeed homophobic.
IN what context are they not mentionable? Presumably an academic historian would be able to narrate them in a book on the case?
Saying in a conversation something like "Oscar Wilde would have got life, these days". Apparently, he is an icon of persecution, so attributing certain behaviour to him is attacking an icon. Hence attacking a community.
Ah, thanks. I'm reading that in the sense of what he would get today if he was prosecuted (say, if he had been molesting a minor [edit] or wwhatever it was was imputed to him - I'm not familiar with the details). Is that correct?
I suppose in an analogy this Christmas law and advice is similar to a speed limit. Yes, you can legally drive at 60mph on many single track country lanes, but to do so would be extremely risky.
Wooo hold on their buddy....that requires common sense and personal responsibility.... impossible.
The whole thing is just daft, if people don't know now the risks involved with Covid they never will.
Mr. Malmesbury, that sounds insane. It prohibits discussion of historical facts because they don't, or may not, tally with modern morality.
Imposing modern norms on the past leads to revisionism of history, rewriting it to be more currently convenient and throwing out irksome accuracies. It leads to bullshit like the Common Era nonsense.
I was told at a seminar on workplace behaviour that (for example) some the facts of the case regarding Oscar Wilde are not mentionable - and are indeed homophobic.
IN what context are they not mentionable? Presumably an academic historian would be able to narrate them in a book on the case?
Saying in a conversation something like "Oscar Wilde would have got life, these days". Apparently, he is an icon of persecution, so attributing certain behaviour to him is attacking an icon. Hence attacking a community.
Ah, thanks. I'm reading that in the sense of what he would get today if he was prosecuted (say, if he had been molesting a minor [edit] or wwhatever it was was imputed to him - I'm not familiar with the details). Is that correct?
Yes - and there is no doubt as to what he did. He spoke of it to several people. And it was part of the evidence that sank him for perjury.
This comes from trying reduce human relations to a grid of victims and heroes, all in their little coloured boxes.
Real people are complicated.
So you have to start cutting bits off to make them fit.
Interesting. Checked Wikipedia, and apparently there's lots of arguments over the age.
Not that Wikipedia's always right. It thinks Alexander was Greek...
You'd have us argue that the British Empire was in fact Norman though on that basis.
He may not have been Greek, but his legacy clearly is.
Surely the British Empire was Norman? They conquered us and then just kept on conquering! The Tory party is clearly the Norman party too.
It is one of the arguments I have with Scots about their claims that it was 'the English' who conquered and oppressed them. What they forget is that before they were conquered and oppressed by the Norman elite, the same thing had happened to the English. They were the first victims of the Norman Empire.
England was first conquered by the Anglo Saxons before the Normans however, Scotland was never fully conquered by the Saxons apart from the southeast which was part of the Kingdom of Northumbria. The rest of it was a mix of Celts and Gaelic settlers from Ireland.
Scotland also kept separate monarchs from England for centuries after the Norman conquest of England, unlike Wales which was united under the crown of England by the 13th century the English and Scottish crowns were not united until the 18th century.
You're forgetting the Picts, Mesolithic, Normans, Norwegians, Danes, Frisians, etc. etcv.
It's even worse than I thought. We were even conquered by cows....
Feels like we have ended up pretty much where I said we should have been weeks ago when Johnson and Cummings started on about 'saving xmas'. We aren't criminalising a gathering, but the strong, strong health advice is Don't Do It.
Sky news already and predictably saying TOOOOOOO CONFUSING....
Its just too confusing to have legal rules and guidance.
THE LAW: Do this legal thing THE ADVICE: Don't do this legal thing despite all the times we have not only told you to do it but done everything possible to make it easier for you
No that's totally false:
THE LAW: Do not do this illegal thing. THE ADVICE: Think twice before doing these legal things.
If the law is "do this" like you phrased it that means you "MUST" do it - not that you can. Consider a distinction with drinking.
THE LAW: You can drink two bottles of wine, but it would be illegal to drive after doing so. THE ADVICE: Do not drink more than 14 units of alcohol (approximately one bottle of wine) per week.
So it looks like we've found BoJo's "win", the EU won't take unilateral action but there will be a disputes mechanism setup which amounts to basically the same thing, protection of the single market - if I am understanding the Tweets correctly
Which is fine. If there is no material divergence the issue does not arise. If there is it will be looked at on a case by case basis with some sort of impartial adjudication. I don’t think that we could ask for more than that.
Well, apparently we did ask for more, namely the ability to ignore future EU rule changes without consequence. Did it really have to take this long to meet somewhere in the middle?
It seems kind of obvious doesn't it? We cannot be compelled to follow the EU into more bureaucracy but we don't get a free pass if we don't. Seems fair to me and we really should have got to this point a good year ago. Here's hoping it is finalised soon.
Yep. This could have been agreed ages ago. No question about that. But it would have looked too easy and like we could have got more. This way is better for Johnson in terms of selling it. Go the wire and beyond, hype up the differences, the challenge, pretend until the last that No Deal is on the cards, then voila, Deal after all! Much relief, which is a great atmosphere for him to surf on, and it also looks to the unwary that we have forced a load of last minute concessions.
Feels like we have ended up pretty much where I said we should have been weeks ago when Johnson and Cummings started on about 'saving xmas'. We aren't criminalising a gathering, but the strong, strong health advice is Don't Do It.
Seems best advice and I struggle to understand how anyone finds this difficult other than those playing politics
Mr. Malmesbury, that sounds insane. It prohibits discussion of historical facts because they don't, or may not, tally with modern morality.
Imposing modern norms on the past leads to revisionism of history, rewriting it to be more currently convenient and throwing out irksome accuracies. It leads to bullshit like the Common Era nonsense.
I was told at a seminar on workplace behaviour that (for example) some the facts of the case regarding Oscar Wilde are not mentionable - and are indeed homophobic.
IN what context are they not mentionable? Presumably an academic historian would be able to narrate them in a book on the case?
Saying in a conversation something like "Oscar Wilde would have got life, these days". Apparently, he is an icon of persecution, so attributing certain behaviour to him is attacking an icon. Hence attacking a community.
Ah, thanks. I'm reading that in the sense of what he would get today if he was prosecuted (say, if he had been molesting a minor [edit] or wwhatever it was was imputed to him - I'm not familiar with the details). Is that correct?
Yes - and there is no doubt as to what he did. He spoke of it to several people. And it was part of the evidence that sank him for perjury.
Thanks. *blinks* An, erm, interesting approach. But in this case he would have been done for it just as much in the past as today so I can't see it is imposing modern norms on the past. I must be missing something ...
Just when you thought that you could no longer be surprised by the government's Brexit looniness, they come up with this world-class humdinger of insanity:
Serious question Richard, is it really as ridiculous as you're making it sound. Presumably there are legal and policy issues related to activities, social conditions, employment law etc... that will take part within those parts of the Chunnel that are under UK J&C that do not require ECJ jurisdiction for the Chunnel to function and where some divergence of practice has no impact on the performance of the tunnel. Or am I misreading what this covers?
Health and safety, for example. If the EU, or an ECJ ruling, says that EU safety regulations have changed so as to outlaw some goods which currently can be carried, what on earth is the UK going to do to avoid 'dynamic alignment' with that ruling? Stop the train half way through the tunnel and chuck those chemicals on to the track?
But Health and Safety rules as applied to those working on the track in the UK part?
Those people from the past, refusing to conform to modern views. The swine!
More seriously, it's vital we remember the screw-ups of the past to avoid them in the future without needing to suffer the pain of experiencing them in the present.
A great value to me, of the past, is that by looking at the past and then the present, we can have a good idea of the future. Establish a bearing, as it were.....
A while back, I was the member of one of the new wave of members clubs. The place was closed and rented out for London Fashion week. I had suggested to the management previously, the likely result. The manager was shocked when damage occurred etc etc.. Apparently the whole thing went out of control.....
I had pointed out that the regulation of the "old" clubs was invented in Victorian times to curb the behaviour in the gentlemen's club of the Georgian period.
That, once the restrictions were off, the same behaviours would re-occur, seemed inevitable to me.
I do wonder - if Boris gets a deal, and things carry on broadly as before in terms of trade with the EU, will that weaken the sense of grievance amongst a certain softer part of the Scottish independence vote?
I suspect that Johnson`s primary purpose will become protecting the Union.
CW now saying expects MHRA approval early next year possibly sooner.
Have they broke up early for Christmas?
I think before Christmas was the optimistic outlook for Oxford/AZ and the real plan was always for early Jan. Hopefully it still looks like that when we get to early January.
Mr. Malmesbury, that sounds insane. It prohibits discussion of historical facts because they don't, or may not, tally with modern morality.
Imposing modern norms on the past leads to revisionism of history, rewriting it to be more currently convenient and throwing out irksome accuracies. It leads to bullshit like the Common Era nonsense.
I was told at a seminar on workplace behaviour that (for example) some the facts of the case regarding Oscar Wilde are not mentionable - and are indeed homophobic.
IN what context are they not mentionable? Presumably an academic historian would be able to narrate them in a book on the case?
Saying in a conversation something like "Oscar Wilde would have got life, these days". Apparently, he is an icon of persecution, so attributing certain behaviour to him is attacking an icon. Hence attacking a community.
Ah, thanks. I'm reading that in the sense of what he would get today if he was prosecuted (say, if he had been molesting a minor [edit] or wwhatever it was was imputed to him - I'm not familiar with the details). Is that correct?
Yes - and there is no doubt as to what he did. He spoke of it to several people. And it was part of the evidence that sank him for perjury.
Thanks. *blinks* An, erm, interesting approach. But in this case he would have been done for it just as much in the past as today so I can't see it is imposing modern norms on the past. I must be missing something ...
He wasn't done for the said activities. He was convicted of perjury, for denying them in court, in a libel action.
What you are missing is that Wilde is a hero for some. So pointing out that he was actually a serious criminal by *todays* standards is to attack an icon. Which is punching down.
Sky news already and predictably saying TOOOOOOO CONFUSING....
Its just too confusing to have legal rules and guidance.
THE LAW: Do this legal thing THE ADVICE: Don't do this legal thing despite all the times we have not only told you to do it but done everything possible to make it easier for you
No that's totally false:
THE LAW: Do not do this illegal thing. THE ADVICE: Think twice before doing these legal things.
If the law is "do this" like you phrased it that means you "MUST" do it - not that you can. Consider a distinction with drinking.
THE LAW: You can drink two bottles of wine, but it would be illegal to drive after doing so. THE ADVICE: Do not drink more than 14 units of alcohol (approximately one bottle of wine) per week.
70 MPH the law
There black ice on all the roads so you are advised to go at 10 mph and the gritters are coming soon but are waiting on approval to grit
Mr. Malmesbury, that sounds insane. It prohibits discussion of historical facts because they don't, or may not, tally with modern morality.
Imposing modern norms on the past leads to revisionism of history, rewriting it to be more currently convenient and throwing out irksome accuracies. It leads to bullshit like the Common Era nonsense.
I was told at a seminar on workplace behaviour that (for example) some the facts of the case regarding Oscar Wilde are not mentionable - and are indeed homophobic.
IN what context are they not mentionable? Presumably an academic historian would be able to narrate them in a book on the case?
Saying in a conversation something like "Oscar Wilde would have got life, these days". Apparently, he is an icon of persecution, so attributing certain behaviour to him is attacking an icon. Hence attacking a community.
Ah, thanks. I'm reading that in the sense of what he would get today if he was prosecuted (say, if he had been molesting a minor [edit] or wwhatever it was was imputed to him - I'm not familiar with the details). Is that correct?
Yes - and there is no doubt as to what he did. He spoke of it to several people. And it was part of the evidence that sank him for perjury.
This comes from trying reduce human relations to a grid of victims and heroes, all in their little coloured boxes.
Real people are complicated.
So you have to start cutting bits off to make them fit.
There was no evidence as to age at the trial (wouldn't be relevant) and therefore there is no evidence of under-16 victims. You'd have to research the average age of the London postboy to get a better idea.
Mr. Malmesbury, that sounds insane. It prohibits discussion of historical facts because they don't, or may not, tally with modern morality.
Imposing modern norms on the past leads to revisionism of history, rewriting it to be more currently convenient and throwing out irksome accuracies. It leads to bullshit like the Common Era nonsense.
I was told at a seminar on workplace behaviour that (for example) some the facts of the case regarding Oscar Wilde are not mentionable - and are indeed homophobic.
IN what context are they not mentionable? Presumably an academic historian would be able to narrate them in a book on the case?
Saying in a conversation something like "Oscar Wilde would have got life, these days". Apparently, he is an icon of persecution, so attributing certain behaviour to him is attacking an icon. Hence attacking a community.
Ah, thanks. I'm reading that in the sense of what he would get today if he was prosecuted (say, if he had been molesting a minor [edit] or wwhatever it was was imputed to him - I'm not familiar with the details). Is that correct?
Yes - and there is no doubt as to what he did. He spoke of it to several people. And it was part of the evidence that sank him for perjury.
Thanks. *blinks* An, erm, interesting approach. But in this case he would have been done for it just as much in the past as today so I can't see it is imposing modern norms on the past. I must be missing something ...
He wasn't done for the said activities. He was convicted of perjury, for denying them in court, in a libel action.
What you are missing is that Wilde is a hero for some. So pointing out that he was actually a serious criminal by *todays* standards is to attack an icon. Which is punching down.
Ah, thanks! Rather reinforces my view that history is to be inquired into and commemorated, perhaps, but never celebrated.
Comments
Greece at the time was a collection of city-states. There was Athens. It happened to be in Attica, but Attica wasn't the political bloc. Likewise Sparta and Lacedaemon(ia?).
The Hellenistic culture certainly was a great factor in Macedon, and Epirus, but that doesn't make them Greek, anymore than English-speaking Australians are British.
The Olympic Games argument is an interesting one I haven't heard before. It seems like (again, just quickly checking Wikipedia) that those from Greek-founded cities could participate. That would presumably include residents of Tarentum, a city founded as Taras by Greeks and under Roman sway for centuries.
Edited extra bit: hmm.
Russian attempts at interference are a proven fact (and nothing new, of course). Whether Russian interference actually achieved anything is completely unclear, but even if it did, there is still the rather vital point that US electors cast those votes for Trump, not Russian bots, and so the point of the complaints can only be that Trump voters were so stupid that they allowed themselves to be influenced by those bots and that, therefore, the election wasn't legitimate.
Do you not see a smidgen of a problem with telling voters that they were illegally influenced by Putin, which implies that their votes were worth less than those of nice East and West coast liberals? Or even a problem with telling yourself that?
Must say I find Mr. Z's Olympics argument quite interesting.
Its just too confusing to have legal rules and guidance.
But it is a bit smaller than the owl.
My grandfather was once invited to give a speech in Athens
Being fairly well educated he gave the speech in Greek. Unfortunately he didn’t realise there was a difference between ancient and modern Greek... the only person who understood him was the British ambassador 😂
And also the usual degree of irritation at our PM's mannerisms.
Especially since as I've posted for so long - posted and posted and posted till I'm blue of face and red of fingers - that said relief has been deliberately manufactured by Johnson & Co hyping up the Never Happening event of No Deal almost until the second he signs the one he has inevitably agreed.
https://twitter.com/GeorgePeretzQC/status/1339227792987271168
https://twitter.com/GeorgePeretzQC/status/1339230901717360640
The media really do seem to think this is the case.
Now, I am going to put the kettle on, I need the look up on the government website to.check what the law is on how much to fill it.
A while back, it was argued that it was racist to publish *translations* of some of the stuff published in the Arab world. Which was full of racism against Jews.
The argument was interesting - the outlets themselves censor this stuff (or used to) when publishing in English. So they have some kind of right-to-be-racist in the privacy of their own language.
Imposing modern norms on the past leads to revisionism of history, rewriting it to be more currently convenient and throwing out irksome accuracies. It leads to bullshit like the Common Era nonsense.
The concession is managed by Getlink, the French public company.
But if the UK government decided (for whatever reason) to close it down they could.
THE ADVICE: Don't do this legal thing despite all the times we have not only told you to do it but done everything possible to make it easier for you
Agree on the Normans though, time to throw off the yoke.
And the #VATmess nonsense wasn't exactly reducing the workload of businesses.
I never think of German Shepherds (Alsatians) as being particularly well camouflaged, but this time of year going through the underbrush in the woods, it can be really hard to spot them.
Or, even more technically, do this illegal thing and here are the consequences
Scotland also kept separate monarchs from England for centuries after the Norman conquest of England, unlike Wales which was united under the crown of England by the 13th century the English and Scottish crowns were not united until the 18th century.
but criminalising people's social behaviour has been going all year.
The media seem to have had a hard time understanding this pandemic from the beginning.
Perhaps they need the public to explain it to them in simple words?
Those people from the past, refusing to conform to modern views. The swine!
More seriously, it's vital we remember the screw-ups of the past to avoid them in the future without needing to suffer the pain of experiencing them in the present.
The issue it actually the Dakota 38.....
This comes from trying reduce human relations to a grid of victims and heroes, all in their little coloured boxes.
Real people are complicated.
So you have to start cutting bits off to make them fit.
THE LAW: Do not do this illegal thing.
THE ADVICE: Think twice before doing these legal things.
If the law is "do this" like you phrased it that means you "MUST" do it - not that you can. Consider a distinction with drinking.
THE LAW: You can drink two bottles of wine, but it would be illegal to drive after doing so.
THE ADVICE: Do not drink more than 14 units of alcohol (approximately one bottle of wine) per week.
Edited extra bit: on a serious note, Australia once lost a war to kangaroos.
Edited extra bit: I apologise to Australia. It was emus, not kangaroos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/12/south-china-sea-us-ghosts-strategic-tensions/617380/
CW now saying expects MHRA approval early next year possibly sooner.
Have they broke up early for Christmas?
A while back, I was the member of one of the new wave of members clubs. The place was closed and rented out for London Fashion week. I had suggested to the management previously, the likely result. The manager was shocked when damage occurred etc etc.. Apparently the whole thing went out of control.....
I had pointed out that the regulation of the "old" clubs was invented in Victorian times to curb the behaviour in the gentlemen's club of the Georgian period.
That, once the restrictions were off, the same behaviours would re-occur, seemed inevitable to me.
What you are missing is that Wilde is a hero for some. So pointing out that he was actually a serious criminal by *todays* standards is to attack an icon. Which is punching down.
There black ice on all the roads so you are advised to go at 10 mph and the gritters are coming soon but are waiting on approval to grit