The front pages are pretty bad for Hancock – politicalbetting.com

kinabalu said:

borisatsun said:

kinabalu said:

borisatsun said:

isam said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Why does it matter if the Labour candidate is gay? Who cares, what is wrong with people seriously

British Muslims attitude to homosexuality is equivalent to perhaps the Victorians, according to surveys anyway, and in seats where they are a significant voting bloc, people are using the fact the Labour candidate is gay to stop them voting for her.

One has to be very careful when explaining this to avoid waking Kinabalu by setting off his finely tuned ra-cist-dar

Why not drop the softhead facetiousness and think properly about what we discussed? I answered all your questions impeccably and in a spirit of genuine desire to clarify and illuminate. It's all there at the end of the thread in question, "Trump at 25% chance". I can do no more.

So why don't you answer CHB's question

"Why does it matter if the Labour candidate is gay? Who cares, what is wrong with people seriously"

for us, in a way that doesn't skirt around the obvious truth but contains no "tells"?

Homophobia is more prevalent amongst Muslims than it is in the general population and there's a large Muslim presence in Batley. But Labour have (quite rightly) not let this stop them selecting a gay candidate. It'll cost them votes but so what. Some things are more important than votes. You shouldn't pander to outdated attitudes and bigotry whether it comes from Muslims or from white working class leavers or from wherever.

So that's that.

Now to the general and pertinent point, the point at issue. What's a tell of islamophobia as opposed to pukka by-election analysis? I've done it but I'll do it again. You have to distinguish between the following 2 things -

Somebody using Muslim homophobia to aid their analysis of the by-election.
Somebody using the by-election to bang on about Muslim homophobia.

The latter is the tell, the former isn't. And the latter is a tell particularly if the "somebody" is a person who, apart from in the Muslim context, is not known for having any interest whatsoever in LGBT rights.

And you need an ear to tell the difference. To tell the tell from the not a tell.

I have such an ear. I'm not bragging, I just do. Some people are good at cooking, at sport, at playing the piano, at any of a million things. Me I'm good at detecting bigotry (especially of the urbane sort). But I don't want loads of questions on it. Don't want the responsibility or the pressure of that. In the same way people don't bug @Foxy with their personal medical concerns, so I should be left in peace on this.

Thought long and hard about whether to even reply on this thread - but hang it why not. I trust people to take the positives.

Dura_Ace said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Batley and Spen is going to end up with somebody being killed

Let's hope it's Galloway.

Dura_Ace said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Batley and Spen is going to end up with somebody being killed

Let's hope it's Galloway.

YBarddCwsc said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

bigjohnowls said:

Over in B&S quite remarkable coverage


https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/1408722355631923201

I wonder why wouldn't Labour give an interview with Joe? The journalist is definitely left leaning, and i have seen him interview a whole range of people across the political spectrum and is always polite and reasonable.

I think @DavidL has hit the nail on the head with "inexperienced and possibly fragile candidate."

Dura_Ace said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Batley and Spen is going to end up with somebody being killed

Let's hope it's Galloway.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Dura_Ace said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Batley and Spen is going to end up with somebody being killed

Let's hope it's Galloway.

Wanting someone killed is not funny, not satire, and is pure inexcusable hate

FrancisUrquhart said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

bigjohnowls said:

Over in B&S quite remarkable coverage


https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/1408722355631923201

I wonder why wouldn't Labour give an interview with Joe? The journalist is definitely left leaning, and i have seen him interview a whole range of people across the political spectrum and is always polite and reasonable.

I think @DavidL has hit the nail on the head with "inexperienced and possibly fragile candidate."

Yes perhaps. Sounds like they asked for an interview for quiite while leading up to it. Joe doesn't exactly get big viewership, but i would say that guy is a very low risk interview. He is broadly sympathetic and even those he interviews who he isn't, he seems to give them a fair shake e.g. i have seen him talk with douglas murray at length on a number of occasions and it comes across as a perfectly reasonable conversation between two adults who have some different views....quite shocking in the modern media world of so what you mean is...no i never said that....but what you mean is...

Black_Rook said:

Philip_Thompson said:

2nd AZN jab done. 💉💪

Mine's also done, and I am pleased to report that it's been both a lovely day in Cambridge and that, apart from a somewhat higher percentage of shuttered shops, and the stupid masks all over the place, things are looking surprisingly normal. I sat myself down on a bench on Parker's Piece, near to a group of athletic, shirtless young men playing volleyball (whom, of course, I scarcely noticed) and ate my lunch, very slowly, thinking that all was almost right with the world.

Now we just need to get over the July 19th hurdle and I think, thanks in no small part to Hancock's naughtiness, we're actually going to get there. I mean, I won't believe it until it actually happens, but I'm feeling a degree of optimism. The glorious day of mask burning approaches...

DavidL said:

It’s why I have been going on about this for over 2 months. Why have we been so slow in vaxxing the younger cohorts? Is it supply or is it lack of enthusiasm or is it that the government can’t be arsed?
Each of these has a different policy solution and we need to choose the right one. Now. Actually a month ago. But now would still help.

YBarddCwsc said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

bigjohnowls said:

Over in B&S quite remarkable coverage


https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/1408722355631923201

I wonder why wouldn't Labour give an interview with Joe? The journalist is definitely left leaning, and i have seen him interview a whole range of people across the political spectrum and is always polite and reasonable.

I think @DavidL has hit the nail on the head with "inexperienced and possibly fragile candidate."

isam said:

kinabalu said:

borisatsun said:

kinabalu said:

borisatsun said:

isam said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Why does it matter if the Labour candidate is gay? Who cares, what is wrong with people seriously

British Muslims attitude to homosexuality is equivalent to perhaps the Victorians, according to surveys anyway, and in seats where they are a significant voting bloc, people are using the fact the Labour candidate is gay to stop them voting for her.

One has to be very careful when explaining this to avoid waking Kinabalu by setting off his finely tuned ra-cist-dar

Why not drop the softhead facetiousness and think properly about what we discussed? I answered all your questions impeccably and in a spirit of genuine desire to clarify and illuminate. It's all there at the end of the thread in question, "Trump at 25% chance". I can do no more.

So why don't you answer CHB's question

"Why does it matter if the Labour candidate is gay? Who cares, what is wrong with people seriously"

for us, in a way that doesn't skirt around the obvious truth but contains no "tells"?

Homophobia is more prevalent amongst Muslims than it is in the general population and there's a large Muslim presence in Batley. But Labour have (quite rightly) not let this stop them selecting a gay candidate. It'll cost them votes but so what. Some things are more important than votes. You shouldn't pander to outdated attitudes and bigotry whether it comes from Muslims or from white working class leavers or from wherever.

So that's that.

Now to the general and pertinent point, the point at issue. What's a tell of islamophobia as opposed to pukka by-election analysis? I've done it but I'll do it again. You have to distinguish between the following 2 things -

Somebody using Muslim homophobia to aid their analysis of the by-election.
Somebody using the by-election to bang on about Muslim homophobia.

The latter is the tell, the former isn't. And the latter is a tell particularly if the "somebody" is a person who, apart from in the Muslim context, is not known for having any interest whatsoever in LGBT rights.

And you need an ear to tell the difference. To tell the tell from the not a tell.

I have such an ear. I'm not bragging, I just do. Some people are good at cooking, at sport, at playing the piano, at any of a million things. Me I'm good at detecting bigotry (especially of the urbane sort). But I don't want loads of questions on it. Don't want the responsibility or the pressure of that. In the same way people don't bug @Foxy with their personal medical concerns, so I should be left in peace on this.

Thought long and hard about whether to even reply on this thread - but hang it why not. I trust people to take the positives.

Self praise is no reference

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

borisatsun said:

kinabalu said:

borisatsun said:

isam said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Why does it matter if the Labour candidate is gay? Who cares, what is wrong with people seriously

British Muslims attitude to homosexuality is equivalent to perhaps the Victorians, according to surveys anyway, and in seats where they are a significant voting bloc, people are using the fact the Labour candidate is gay to stop them voting for her.

One has to be very careful when explaining this to avoid waking Kinabalu by setting off his finely tuned ra-cist-dar

Why not drop the softhead facetiousness and think properly about what we discussed? I answered all your questions impeccably and in a spirit of genuine desire to clarify and illuminate. It's all there at the end of the thread in question, "Trump at 25% chance". I can do no more.

So why don't you answer CHB's question

"Why does it matter if the Labour candidate is gay? Who cares, what is wrong with people seriously"

for us, in a way that doesn't skirt around the obvious truth but contains no "tells"?

Homophobia is more prevalent amongst Muslims than it is in the general population and there's a large Muslim presence in Batley. But Labour have (quite rightly) not let this stop them selecting a gay candidate. It'll cost them votes but so what. Some things are more important than votes. You shouldn't pander to outdated attitudes and bigotry whether it comes from Muslims or from white working class leavers or from wherever.

So that's that.

Now to the general and pertinent point, the point at issue. What's a tell of islamophobia as opposed to pukka by-election analysis? I've done it but I'll do it again. You have to distinguish between the following 2 things -

Somebody using Muslim homophobia to aid their analysis of the by-election.
Somebody using the by-election to bang on about Muslim homophobia.

The latter is the tell, the former isn't. And the latter is a tell particularly if the "somebody" is a person who, apart from in the Muslim context, is not known for having any interest whatsoever in LGBT rights.

And you need an ear to tell the difference. To tell the tell from the not a tell.

I have such an ear. I'm not bragging, I just do. Some people are good at cooking, at sport, at playing the piano, at any of a million things. Me I'm good at detecting bigotry (especially of the urbane sort). But I don't want loads of questions on it. Don't want the responsibility or the pressure of that. In the same way people don't bug @Foxy with their personal medical concerns, so I should be left in peace on this.

Thought long and hard about whether to even reply on this thread - but hang it why not. I trust people to take the positives.

Self praise is no reference

Ok. I'll get my mum to write to you.

Aslan said:

isam said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Dura_Ace said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Batley and Spen is going to end up with somebody being killed

Let's hope it's Galloway.

Wanting someone killed is not funny, not satire, and is pure inexcusable hate

Internet tough guy

Rides a BMX

Condemning jokes about politicians killed isn't being an internet tough guy. It's being a decent person.