Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Boris Johnson isn’t under threat – politicalbetting.com

1235

Comments

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,166
    edited October 2021

    Carnyx said:



    Just thinking what a fine newspaper the Scotsman used to be - positive about devolution and printing the arguments of unionist and independista alike. Its transmogrification into something about as moderate as that chap who used to sound off at the foot of the Mound steps in Edinburgh was one of the great crimes of modern Scotland.

    Do you have the same opinion of the National?
    I have a professional interest in that - we're leading a consortium of NGOs to advertise our view on what countries can do on climate change at the start of COP. The main advert will be a full page in The Times, but we thought we'd try to influence the Scottish Government while we were at it, and perhaps they'll be distributing the National at delegates' hotels, so we thought of taking an ad there too. Do Scots here think that the paper is in fact widely read by SNP ministers, or is it more of a supportive paper but not especially influential?
    I'd say supportive but not especially influential, but that doesn't necessarily negate the value of an ad. Pretty sure it would be seen by most SNP msps and ministers (plus all the Unionists that seem to hang on its every word).
    I agree. I'd add that I can't imagine that 'they' would be distributing it at hotels if 'they' refers to the SG; and also the National has not always been very friendly to the SNP, more on the Green/Trot side at some times. But with the Greens now in partnership ...

    Hotel operators, you [NP] mean? I have a slight concern some hotel companies might not issue it if only because they might be using a standard list drawn up in London without considering national and regional differences, but you will have more of a sense of that than I do (not being a patron of that kind of hotel inmy working life).
  • kle4 said:

    Emmanuel Macron says he will launch a campaign for the universal abolition of the death penalty.

    https://twitter.com/BFMTV/status/1446789179027902465

    LOL good luck with that. 😂

    You can tell when a leader of a country is losing their grip on power/reality when they start seeking "universal" changes to the planet he has no hope of dealing with, because he can't deal with his own nation that he could.

    image

    ____________________________________________________________________________________________

    Given what some think about Phillip I'm surprised his last words before Harry went off to war were not far worse.
    'with a necklace made from the ears of your enemies' was the unreported end of the sentence.
  • I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong.

    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,688
    GIN1138 said:

    Anyone think Polexit is a serious possibility?

    I don't think there will be moves to expel Poland or for it to leave of its own accord. Nevertheless the absence of Rule of Law in Poland and Hungary is an existential threat to the EU, that Brexit turned out not to be. The EU and member states will need to confront the issue.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,544
    edited October 2021
    ping said:

    Can I ask a question for semi-professional gamblers on the site please?

    I've been trying to build my bankroll on Smarkets recently and have been making some nice cash on the site [touch wood it continues]. Besides concerns over losing money via bad bets, are there any limits or reasons to be careful on how much of a bankroll to have with a site like Smarkets or Betfair?

    I believe both Betfair and Smarkets keep their customers funds separate from their business funds, which is monitored, so there should be a high level of protection against insolvency in their businesses. But are there any caps or limits to be careful about?

    I’m much more confident about betfair, than smarkets.

    Smarkets are a very small operator.

    I was aware, a few years ago, of several complaints about them seeding their own markets. It seems they have/had a strange relationship with marketmaker with deep pockets who was putting up cash. I became aware of several conflicts between retail punters and the marketmaker, which seemed to be unfairly settled in favour of the marketmaker. The whole setup was very opaque and very unlike betfair, which, ostensibly, it sought to emulate.

    Personally, I’m uncomfortable with their business model and, if/when I occasionally use them, I keep my balance low.
    Smarkets are doing what bankers call proprietary trading in their own markets, that goes beyond seeding them, using so-called algorithmic trading. Betfair also seeds markets where needed.

    ETA you can get a better idea of what they (and other firms) are up to by looking at their sits vac.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 77,116

    ping said:



    Doing it for these women, and empowering them with their western liberal rights is one thing. I guess I agree. But my main argument is different;

    They should be forced to ditch the burka for *US* - for the shared concept of an *US.*

    A recognition that they live in the same society as the rest of us. Like not wearing your pajamas when you go to the supermarket. Or taking the effort to learn English. It’s about basic decency toward their fellow countryman/women.

    I don’t care if it’s seen by liberals as authoritarian. It’s this argument that, I think, cuts through and has broad support (in a way that the liberal womens rights argument fails).

    Let’s be honest about it and not pretend we’re doing it entirely for them. A decent, inclusive case can be made to legislate to ditch the burka. It’s cultural separatism and not part of Britain and our shared British values. It offends and fragments our sense of us.

    Speak for yourself. I object to the Government telling me what *I* can wear, never mind Muslim women. Today it's the burka, tomorrow it'll be T-shirts with messages that might annoy someone. I get super-libertarian about this sort of thing - it is None of the Government's Business What We Wear (bar basic decency).

    Obviously if people are forced to wear a burka that's something else, and there are laws against coercive control. But the idea that there is One True Standard to which we must all conform is positively Maoist, and if the Government tries to impose one it can fuck right off.
    I think the state has a right to insist people remove face covering attire for things like testifying in court, that sort of thing. Other than that I think being strongly against such things is as far as you can go - it certainly is not felt to be a religious requirement in most places, so it is cultural, and it's ok to be strongly critical of cultural practices even if they are prohibited.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,564
    edited October 2021

    This is a hugely important statement from @jakejsullivan to @POLITICOEurope’s @herszenhorn.
    It signals an important US shift on European defense. The message to the EU is clear: go forth. But stop the theoretical debates and put forth something real. Ball now in EU’s court.


    https://twitter.com/maxbergmann/status/1446797987934580737?s=20

    Article:

    https://www.politico.eu/article/jake-sullivan-biden-national-security-transatlantic/

    “I think the way to carry this forward is to get practical and specific,” Sullivan said. “It is not to talk in terms of the theology of particular terms or the philosophy of particular structures. It is to talk about the what, the how, and the when. And then for the United States to be strongly supportive of that, with that being carried forward.”

    There's an unintentionally hilarious line in that article: "Sullivan said that conversations between leaders, including at the G7 summit in the U.K. earlier this year, were helping to bridge any gaps."

    Wasn't it at that summit that Biden, Johnson and ScoMo had a conversation about the AUKUS deal that has caused the Frogs to throw their toys out of the pram?
  • ping said:

    Can I ask a question for semi-professional gamblers on the site please?

    I've been trying to build my bankroll on Smarkets recently and have been making some nice cash on the site [touch wood it continues]. Besides concerns over losing money via bad bets, are there any limits or reasons to be careful on how much of a bankroll to have with a site like Smarkets or Betfair?

    I believe both Betfair and Smarkets keep their customers funds separate from their business funds, which is monitored, so there should be a high level of protection against insolvency in their businesses. But are there any caps or limits to be careful about?

    I’m much more confident about betfair, than smarkets.

    Smarkets are a very small operator.

    I was aware, a few years ago, of several complaints about them seeding their own markets. It seems they have/had a strange relationship with marketmaker with deep pockets who was putting up cash. I became aware of several conflicts between retail punters and the marketmaker, which seemed to be unfairly settled in favour of the marketmaker. The whole setup was very opaque and very unlike betfair, which, ostensibly, it sought to emulate.

    Personally, I’m uncomfortable with their business model and, if/when I occasionally use them, I keep my balance low.
    Smarkets are doing what bankers call proprietary trading in their own markets, that goes beyond seeding them, using so-called algorithmic trading. Betfair also seeds markets where needed.

    ETA you can get a better idea of what they (and other firms) are up to by looking at their sits vac.
    They're also doing a lot of offers to have 0% commission which makes it curious how they're making money. Presumably for those not using a 0% commission offer.

    I've got a 0% commission arrangement with them which makes them far better value at the same odds as Betfair for trading.

    I'm just curious how safe the funds are. No good paying 0% commission if you lose 100% of your bankroll.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,889

    Emmanuel Macron says he will launch a campaign for the universal abolition of the death penalty.

    https://twitter.com/BFMTV/status/1446789179027902465

    LOL good luck with that. 😂

    You can tell when a leader of a country is losing their grip on power/reality when they start seeking "universal" changes to the planet he has no hope of dealing with, because he can't deal with his own nation that he could.

    image

    ____________________________________________________________________________________________

    LOL!!!
  • ping said:

    Can I ask a question for semi-professional gamblers on the site please?

    I've been trying to build my bankroll on Smarkets recently and have been making some nice cash on the site [touch wood it continues]. Besides concerns over losing money via bad bets, are there any limits or reasons to be careful on how much of a bankroll to have with a site like Smarkets or Betfair?

    I believe both Betfair and Smarkets keep their customers funds separate from their business funds, which is monitored, so there should be a high level of protection against insolvency in their businesses. But are there any caps or limits to be careful about?

    I’m much more confident about betfair, than smarkets.

    Smarkets are a very small operator.

    I was aware, a few years ago, of several complaints about them seeding their own markets. It seems they have/had a strange relationship with marketmaker with deep pockets who was putting up cash. I became aware of several conflicts between retail punters and the marketmaker, which seemed to be unfairly settled in favour of the marketmaker. The whole setup was very opaque and very unlike betfair, which, ostensibly, it sought to emulate.

    Personally, I’m uncomfortable with their business model and, if/when I occasionally use them, I keep my balance low.
    Smarkets are doing what bankers call proprietary trading in their own markets, that goes beyond seeding them, using so-called algorithmic trading. Betfair also seeds markets where needed.

    ETA you can get a better idea of what they (and other firms) are up to by looking at their sits vac.
    Betfair lose money on their seeding and expect to do so, but hope to grow volumes and clients. Smarkets are trying to win punters money. Whilst both trade in their own markets their rationale for doing so is completely different.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 16,934
    I see that we have been discussing the Canadian / Romanian / Chinese loser.

    Otherwise known as British tennis star Emma Raducanu.
  • kle4 said:

    I'm always interested!
    Ah thanks!

    Also this which is showing lots of ballots being counted at the polling stations:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auCiWeai_iw
  • Fishing said:

    This is a hugely important statement from @jakejsullivan to @POLITICOEurope’s @herszenhorn.
    It signals an important US shift on European defense. The message to the EU is clear: go forth. But stop the theoretical debates and put forth something real. Ball now in EU’s court.


    https://twitter.com/maxbergmann/status/1446797987934580737?s=20

    Article:

    https://www.politico.eu/article/jake-sullivan-biden-national-security-transatlantic/

    “I think the way to carry this forward is to get practical and specific,” Sullivan said. “It is not to talk in terms of the theology of particular terms or the philosophy of particular structures. It is to talk about the what, the how, and the when. And then for the United States to be strongly supportive of that, with that being carried forward.”

    There's an unintentionally hilarious line in that article: "Sullivan said that conversations between leaders, including at the G7 summit in the U.K. earlier this year, were helping to bridge any gaps."

    Wasn't it at that summit that Biden, Johnson and ScoMo had a conversation about the AUKUS deal that has caused the Frogs to throw their toys out of the pram?
    'Twas a victory for the little Anglospherers for sure. The unpleasantness over Biden being called a senile, evil, murderous war criminal (©PB) at the time of the fall of Kabul has been glossed over and we've all moved on.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,523
    kle4 said:

    ping said:



    Doing it for these women, and empowering them with their western liberal rights is one thing. I guess I agree. But my main argument is different;

    They should be forced to ditch the burka for *US* - for the shared concept of an *US.*

    A recognition that they live in the same society as the rest of us. Like not wearing your pajamas when you go to the supermarket. Or taking the effort to learn English. It’s about basic decency toward their fellow countryman/women.

    I don’t care if it’s seen by liberals as authoritarian. It’s this argument that, I think, cuts through and has broad support (in a way that the liberal womens rights argument fails).

    Let’s be honest about it and not pretend we’re doing it entirely for them. A decent, inclusive case can be made to legislate to ditch the burka. It’s cultural separatism and not part of Britain and our shared British values. It offends and fragments our sense of us.

    Speak for yourself. I object to the Government telling me what *I* can wear, never mind Muslim women. Today it's the burka, tomorrow it'll be T-shirts with messages that might annoy someone. I get super-libertarian about this sort of thing - it is None of the Government's Business What We Wear (bar basic decency).

    Obviously if people are forced to wear a burka that's something else, and there are laws against coercive control. But the idea that there is One True Standard to which we must all conform is positively Maoist, and if the Government tries to impose one it can fuck right off.
    I think the state has a right to insist people remove face covering attire for things like testifying in court, that sort of thing. Other than that I think being strongly against such things is as far as you can go - it certainly is not felt to be a religious requirement in most places, so it is cultural, and it's ok to be strongly critical of cultural practices even if they are prohibited.
    It is not the state's right to tell people what to wear. The state may argue, in the case of full face coverings etc, that it makes the job of surveillance, public safety etc harder but, if that is the case, the state should make that case more openly.

    I ask on @NickPalmer's comment about super-libertarian on such matters whether he would be happy if people wore T-shirts with right-wing messages or would that fall under the situation of 'for basic decency'? It is also worth pointing out that some people think that a full burqa covering is also against basic decency (I don't). As usual, once you introduce caveats, it all becomes about who gets to set the rules as to what is decent and what is not.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 16,934
    FF43 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Anyone think Polexit is a serious possibility?

    I don't think there will be moves to expel Poland or for it to leave of its own accord. Nevertheless the absence of Rule of Law in Poland and Hungary is an existential threat to the EU, that Brexit turned out not to be. The EU and member states will need to confront the issue.
    So you don't think they'll be Poleaxed?
  • ping said:

    Can I ask a question for semi-professional gamblers on the site please?

    I've been trying to build my bankroll on Smarkets recently and have been making some nice cash on the site [touch wood it continues]. Besides concerns over losing money via bad bets, are there any limits or reasons to be careful on how much of a bankroll to have with a site like Smarkets or Betfair?

    I believe both Betfair and Smarkets keep their customers funds separate from their business funds, which is monitored, so there should be a high level of protection against insolvency in their businesses. But are there any caps or limits to be careful about?

    I’m much more confident about betfair, than smarkets.

    Smarkets are a very small operator.

    I was aware, a few years ago, of several complaints about them seeding their own markets. It seems they have/had a strange relationship with marketmaker with deep pockets who was putting up cash. I became aware of several conflicts between retail punters and the marketmaker, which seemed to be unfairly settled in favour of the marketmaker. The whole setup was very opaque and very unlike betfair, which, ostensibly, it sought to emulate.

    Personally, I’m uncomfortable with their business model and, if/when I occasionally use them, I keep my balance low.
    Smarkets are doing what bankers call proprietary trading in their own markets, that goes beyond seeding them, using so-called algorithmic trading. Betfair also seeds markets where needed.

    ETA you can get a better idea of what they (and other firms) are up to by looking at their sits vac.
    They're also doing a lot of offers to have 0% commission which makes it curious how they're making money. Presumably for those not using a 0% commission offer.

    I've got a 0% commission arrangement with them which makes them far better value at the same odds as Betfair for trading.

    I'm just curious how safe the funds are. No good paying 0% commission if you lose 100% of your bankroll.
    From what I recall they make more from their proprietary trading than from commission (not surprising if it is at zero). You can form your own view as to whether this is good or bad (after all, traditional bookmakers are also betting against you) but they are not just an exchange. There might be a parallel with City banks playing on both sides of the fence.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 77,116
    kle4 said:

    ping said:



    Doing it for these women, and empowering them with their western liberal rights is one thing. I guess I agree. But my main argument is different;

    They should be forced to ditch the burka for *US* - for the shared concept of an *US.*

    A recognition that they live in the same society as the rest of us. Like not wearing your pajamas when you go to the supermarket. Or taking the effort to learn English. It’s about basic decency toward their fellow countryman/women.

    I don’t care if it’s seen by liberals as authoritarian. It’s this argument that, I think, cuts through and has broad support (in a way that the liberal womens rights argument fails).

    Let’s be honest about it and not pretend we’re doing it entirely for them. A decent, inclusive case can be made to legislate to ditch the burka. It’s cultural separatism and not part of Britain and our shared British values. It offends and fragments our sense of us.

    Speak for yourself. I object to the Government telling me what *I* can wear, never mind Muslim women. Today it's the burka, tomorrow it'll be T-shirts with messages that might annoy someone. I get super-libertarian about this sort of thing - it is None of the Government's Business What We Wear (bar basic decency).

    Obviously if people are forced to wear a burka that's something else, and there are laws against coercive control. But the idea that there is One True Standard to which we must all conform is positively Maoist, and if the Government tries to impose one it can fuck right off.
    I think the state has a right to insist people remove face covering attire for things like testifying in court, that sort of thing. Other than that I think being strongly against such things is as far as you can go - it certainly is not felt to be a religious requirement in most places, so it is cultural, and it's ok to be strongly critical of cultural practices even if they are prohibited.
    There should be a ''not" as the penultimate word.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,739
    One for our younger readers.
    But that bald bloke from Fingerbobs has died. He seemed old in 1974 tbf.


    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/oct/09/fingerbobs-and-play-school-presenter-rick-jones-dies-aged-84
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    MaxPB said:

    The EU's proposals for addressing the problems in NI are substantive & far reaching. They will effectively do away with all paperwork for goods destined for NI - instead of a border in Irish Sea, think of a “green” (NI-bound) & “red” (Single Market) lane 1/

    https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1446748866812989442?s=20

    All very sensible and reasonable from the EU side. Expect more histrionics from Frosty the no man.
    Not really, it's essentially everything we've been asking for. The detail may say different so we can't be sure but if it is as currently advertised then it is the EU accepting the UK solution to the issue.

    It's what the Irish have been asking for as well. They have always wanted a pragmatic enforcement of the protocol, not an absolute one. And therein lies the problem. If Dublin wants this, the Brexit loons will inevitably reject it. That means that the UK government will have to. Thus, the stand-off will continue.

    Let’s see before you go all Eeyore on us
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,523

    I see that we have been discussing the Canadian / Romanian / Chinese loser.

    Otherwise known as British tennis star Emma Raducanu.

    Anyone seen any tweets saying her loss was down to Brexit?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 77,116
    MrEd said:

    kle4 said:

    ping said:



    Doing it for these women, and empowering them with their western liberal rights is one thing. I guess I agree. But my main argument is different;

    They should be forced to ditch the burka for *US* - for the shared concept of an *US.*

    A recognition that they live in the same society as the rest of us. Like not wearing your pajamas when you go to the supermarket. Or taking the effort to learn English. It’s about basic decency toward their fellow countryman/women.

    I don’t care if it’s seen by liberals as authoritarian. It’s this argument that, I think, cuts through and has broad support (in a way that the liberal womens rights argument fails).

    Let’s be honest about it and not pretend we’re doing it entirely for them. A decent, inclusive case can be made to legislate to ditch the burka. It’s cultural separatism and not part of Britain and our shared British values. It offends and fragments our sense of us.

    Speak for yourself. I object to the Government telling me what *I* can wear, never mind Muslim women. Today it's the burka, tomorrow it'll be T-shirts with messages that might annoy someone. I get super-libertarian about this sort of thing - it is None of the Government's Business What We Wear (bar basic decency).

    Obviously if people are forced to wear a burka that's something else, and there are laws against coercive control. But the idea that there is One True Standard to which we must all conform is positively Maoist, and if the Government tries to impose one it can fuck right off.
    I think the state has a right to insist people remove face covering attire for things like testifying in court, that sort of thing. Other than that I think being strongly against such things is as far as you can go - it certainly is not felt to be a religious requirement in most places, so it is cultural, and it's ok to be strongly critical of cultural practices even if they are prohibited.
    It is not the state's right to tell people what to wear. The state may argue, in the case of full face coverings etc, that it makes the job of surveillance, public safety etc harder but, if that is the case, the state should make that case more openly.

    I ask on @NickPalmer's comment about super-libertarian on such matters whether he would be happy if people wore T-shirts with right-wing messages or would that fall under the situation of 'for basic decency'? It is also worth pointing out that some people think that a full burqa covering is also against basic decency (I don't). As usual, once you introduce caveats, it all becomes about who gets to set the rules as to what is decent and what is not.
    I'm not suggesting any rules on what to wear. In my example of a court setting there's any number of things I could do in other places as a right I could not do there, I see no issue with there being rules for a such specific scenarios. I certainly don't agree with sumptuary laws on clothing, but I don't think there's a problem with anyone, including politicians, from saying they don't think people should do something, so long as they don't make it a law. If I want to say that people wearing baseball caps sideways, as they did briefly in the 90s, is bloody stupid, I can so long as I dont force people not to.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,544
    edited October 2021

    I see that we have been discussing the Canadian / Romanian / Chinese loser.

    Otherwise known as British tennis star Emma Raducanu.

    You Geordies can't stand that she's a Londoner. :wink:
  • LeonLeon Posts: 23,895
    People of sensitive disposition should look away from the Telegraph today

    It is like the Book of the Apocalypse

    From a huge surge in inflation, to a 15 year energy crunch, to flu panic in winter, to semi-permanent shortages, to a crash in the stock market, to a global debt crisis....

    Ooo-er
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,523
    Quick question for the PB.com - do we think Women's Football has the potential to become a lot more lucrative over the next few years or not?

    I see the BBC have the Man City - Man United WSL game now as their top headline on the BBC website, and it seems with WSL games, the BBC can also give the impression sometimes of enticing people to click on the reports. Several times, I have clicked on the page based on the description and thinking it was a EPL match only to find out it was a WSL game.

    BTW, this is not a "woke" issue question. I'm genuinely interested because, if WSL can become a major popular competition in terms of crowds and then football rights payments, then it maybe can support continued growth in sports rights payments just when there are starting to be questions asked as to how much life there is left in the model.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 2,597
    Leon said:

    People of sensitive disposition should look away from the Telegraph today

    It is like the Book of the Apocalypse

    From a huge surge in inflation, to a 15 year energy crunch, to flu panic in winter, to semi-permanent shortages, to a crash in the stock market, to a global debt crisis....

    Ooo-er

    Alarmist bullcrap to motivate clicks/shift dead tree copies. Quelle surprise.
  • Leon said:

    People of sensitive disposition should look away from the Telegraph today

    It is like the Book of the Apocalypse

    From a huge surge in inflation, to a 15 year energy crunch, to flu panic in winter, to semi-permanent shortages, to a crash in the stock market, to a global debt crisis....

    Ooo-er

    So just a normal day in the office for Ambrose Evans-Pritchard?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 23,895
    dixiedean said:

    One for our younger readers.
    But that bald bloke from Fingerbobs has died. He seemed old in 1974 tbf.


    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/oct/09/fingerbobs-and-play-school-presenter-rick-jones-dies-aged-84

    "Yoffy lifts a finger, and a mouse is there"
  • MrEd said:

    Quick question for the PB.com - do we think Women's Football has the potential to become a lot more lucrative over the next few years or not?

    I see the BBC have the Man City - Man United WSL game now as their top headline on the BBC website, and it seems with WSL games, the BBC can also give the impression sometimes of enticing people to click on the reports. Several times, I have clicked on the page based on the description and thinking it was a EPL match only to find out it was a WSL game.

    BTW, this is not a "woke" issue question. I'm genuinely interested because, if WSL can become a major popular competition in terms of crowds and then football rights payments, then it maybe can support continued growth in sports rights payments just when there are starting to be questions asked as to how much life there is left in the model.

    No reason why not. Women's cricket has come along in leaps and bounds.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,523
    kle4 said:

    MrEd said:

    kle4 said:

    ping said:



    Doing it for these women, and empowering them with their western liberal rights is one thing. I guess I agree. But my main argument is different;

    They should be forced to ditch the burka for *US* - for the shared concept of an *US.*

    A recognition that they live in the same society as the rest of us. Like not wearing your pajamas when you go to the supermarket. Or taking the effort to learn English. It’s about basic decency toward their fellow countryman/women.

    I don’t care if it’s seen by liberals as authoritarian. It’s this argument that, I think, cuts through and has broad support (in a way that the liberal womens rights argument fails).

    Let’s be honest about it and not pretend we’re doing it entirely for them. A decent, inclusive case can be made to legislate to ditch the burka. It’s cultural separatism and not part of Britain and our shared British values. It offends and fragments our sense of us.

    Speak for yourself. I object to the Government telling me what *I* can wear, never mind Muslim women. Today it's the burka, tomorrow it'll be T-shirts with messages that might annoy someone. I get super-libertarian about this sort of thing - it is None of the Government's Business What We Wear (bar basic decency).

    Obviously if people are forced to wear a burka that's something else, and there are laws against coercive control. But the idea that there is One True Standard to which we must all conform is positively Maoist, and if the Government tries to impose one it can fuck right off.
    I think the state has a right to insist people remove face covering attire for things like testifying in court, that sort of thing. Other than that I think being strongly against such things is as far as you can go - it certainly is not felt to be a religious requirement in most places, so it is cultural, and it's ok to be strongly critical of cultural practices even if they are prohibited.
    It is not the state's right to tell people what to wear. The state may argue, in the case of full face coverings etc, that it makes the job of surveillance, public safety etc harder but, if that is the case, the state should make that case more openly.

    I ask on @NickPalmer's comment about super-libertarian on such matters whether he would be happy if people wore T-shirts with right-wing messages or would that fall under the situation of 'for basic decency'? It is also worth pointing out that some people think that a full burqa covering is also against basic decency (I don't). As usual, once you introduce caveats, it all becomes about who gets to set the rules as to what is decent and what is not.
    I'm not suggesting any rules on what to wear. In my example of a court setting there's any number of things I could do in other places as a right I could not do there, I see no issue with there being rules for a such specific scenarios. I certainly don't agree with sumptuary laws on clothing, but I don't think there's a problem with anyone, including politicians, from saying they don't think people should do something, so long as they don't make it a law. If I want to say that people wearing baseball caps sideways, as they did briefly in the 90s, is bloody stupid, I can so long as I dont force people not to.
    I'd agree with all that. Just as there should not be laws banning the Burqa, there shouldn't be laws banning criticism of it under the guise of "hate crimes". I wasn't having a go at Nick per se but a lot of the left are keen to talk about the freedom to wear it but take the opposite stance when it comes to people criticising it.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,739
    MrEd said:

    Quick question for the PB.com - do we think Women's Football has the potential to become a lot more lucrative over the next few years or not?

    I see the BBC have the Man City - Man United WSL game now as their top headline on the BBC website, and it seems with WSL games, the BBC can also give the impression sometimes of enticing people to click on the reports. Several times, I have clicked on the page based on the description and thinking it was a EPL match only to find out it was a WSL game.

    BTW, this is not a "woke" issue question. I'm genuinely interested because, if WSL can become a major popular competition in terms of crowds and then football rights payments, then it maybe can support continued growth in sports rights payments just when there are starting to be questions asked as to how much life there is left in the model.

    They need to be playing at OT. They are at Leigh RL ground.
    This doesn't create the best impression.
    But no reason it shouldn't be popular. I find women's tennis more entertaining, as it isn't all power. The women footballers aren't as good, yet, but I do like the fact when they get in trouble they can't just hoof it halfway into the opposition half.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 23,895

    Leon said:

    People of sensitive disposition should look away from the Telegraph today

    It is like the Book of the Apocalypse

    From a huge surge in inflation, to a 15 year energy crunch, to flu panic in winter, to semi-permanent shortages, to a crash in the stock market, to a global debt crisis....

    Ooo-er

    So just a normal day in the office for Ambrose Evans-Pritchard?
    it's not AEP for once, it's everyone else.


    Hard to say if they are definitely alarmed, or their editors are desperate for clicks - or perhaps both? It is sufficiently unnerving for me to consider selling some shares, perhaps. But in an era of rising inflation, where does the money go?

    They are quite angry at Boris. as well
  • Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    One for our younger readers.
    But that bald bloke from Fingerbobs has died. He seemed old in 1974 tbf.


    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/oct/09/fingerbobs-and-play-school-presenter-rick-jones-dies-aged-84

    "Yoffy lifts a finger, and a mouse is there"
    'And a tortoise head.. peeps out.'
  • Leon said:

    People of sensitive disposition should look away from the Telegraph today

    It is like the Book of the Apocalypse

    From a huge surge in inflation, to a 15 year energy crunch, to flu panic in winter, to semi-permanent shortages, to a crash in the stock market, to a global debt crisis....

    Ooo-er

    The Telegraph got a shout out from Boris the other day. The political significance might be that the Times and Telegraph are both expressing doubts on the sunlit uplands front after Boris's speech to conference.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,739
    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    One for our younger readers.
    But that bald bloke from Fingerbobs has died. He seemed old in 1974 tbf.


    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/oct/09/fingerbobs-and-play-school-presenter-rick-jones-dies-aged-84

    "Yoffy lifts a finger, and a mouse is there"
    Yep. Remarkable to read only 13 were made. And then endlessly repeated.
    We were easily pleased.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 77,116
    MrEd said:

    Quick question for the PB.com - do we think Women's Football has the potential to become a lot more lucrative over the next few years or not?

    I see the BBC have the Man City - Man United WSL game now as their top headline on the BBC website, and it seems with WSL games, the BBC can also give the impression sometimes of enticing people to click on the reports. Several times, I have clicked on the page based on the description and thinking it was a EPL match only to find out it was a WSL game.

    BTW, this is not a "woke" issue question. I'm genuinely interested because, if WSL can become a major popular competition in terms of crowds and then football rights payments, then it maybe can support continued growth in sports rights payments just when there are starting to be questions asked as to how much life there is left in the model.

    It may not seem like it but there probably is an upper limit on how much football people can watch and thus that there is an audience for. I'm not sure WSL will make it as among the amount people generally watch.

    But if it is given increased prominence and the games are decent, with more and more top teams with prominent women's squads, it could do well.

    The Hundred having men and women's games on the same day was a smart move, but given football crowds can be even worse not sure you could do a double header for it.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,169
    edited October 2021

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638

    ping said:

    Can I ask a question for semi-professional gamblers on the site please?

    about?

    I’m much more confident about betfair, than smarkets.

    Smarkets are a very small operator.

    I was aware, a few years ago, of several complaints about them seeding their own markets. It seems they have/had a strange relationship with marketmaker with deep pockets who was putting up cash. I became aware of several conflicts between retail punters and the marketmaker, which seemed to be unfairly settled in favour of the marketmaker. The whole setup was very opaque and very unlike betfair, which, ostensibly, it sought to emulate.

    Personally, I’m uncomfortable with their business model and, if/when I occasionally use them, I keep my balance low.
    Smarkets are doing what bankers call proprietary trading in their own markets, that goes beyond seeding them, using so-called algorithmic trading. Betfair also seeds markets where needed.

    ETA you can get a better idea of what they (and other firms) are up to by looking at their sits vac.
    They're also doing a lot of offers to have 0% commission which makes it curious how they're making money. Presumably for those not using a 0% commission offer.

    I've got a 0% commission arrangement with them which makes them far better value at the same odds as Betfair for trading.

    I'm just curious how safe the funds are. No good paying 0% commission if you lose 100% of your bankroll.
    From what I recall they make more from their proprietary trading than from commission (not surprising if it is at zero). You can form your own view as to whether this is good or bad (after all, traditional bookmakers are also betting against you) but they are not just an exchange. There might be a parallel with City banks playing on both sides of the fence.
    A year or two ago, I was making markets on Betfair and noticed that Smarkets were tracing the prices to their site - not only my prices, the whole Betfair market. I checked it by putting up a lay of £50 on Betfair at 3 and sure enough, Smarkets would go £25 at 3. I’d take my £50 down, and the £25 would disappear, and so on

    So I thought I might as well put odds up on Smarkets too. They made me jump through a million hoops to deposit the money, ‘how did I get the money?’ ‘Can you send bank statements?’ etc. So I did and they sent me a message saying I was banned from ever having an account with them! On their exchange! Incredible
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 8,019
    edited October 2021

    Leon said:

    People of sensitive disposition should look away from the Telegraph today

    It is like the Book of the Apocalypse

    From a huge surge in inflation, to a 15 year energy crunch, to flu panic in winter, to semi-permanent shortages, to a crash in the stock market, to a global debt crisis....

    Ooo-er

    The Telegraph got a shout out from Boris the other day. The political significance might be that the Times and Telegraph are both expressing doubts on the sunlit uplands front after Boris's speech to conference.
    Could be a warning for Boris to tone down the mega-optimistic, high-wage utopia stuff. They think that if Boris has a 'green shoots of recovery' moment it could hand Sir Keir victory on a plate.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 23,895
    IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    Ridiculous

    Go on Twitter and you will find hundreds of campaigners - Muslim women - fighting against the veil, the niqab and the burqa. Listen to the voices of the Afghan women, terrified of the Taliban- "they will put us in those death shrouds again" (and so they have)

    That you haven't heard these voices is not a great look - for you
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,696
    Pulpstar said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Boris's polling stays high because he told people that under him, there would be no attempts to evade the will of the people, no ever more ludicrous attempts to go for a second referendum or delay delay delay until the voters magically said "OK - lets forget about Brexit".

    People didn't expect a perfect Brexit. The Europhiles had spent decades sewing us into the fabric of the EEC --> EU such that it was MEANT to be impossible for us to leave. But the voters gave the Government a single, simple instruction: get us out the EU regardless. Starmer said, er, no. Boris said righto - and did.

    One of the candidates for PM next time has listened to the people and done as instructed. The other did everything he could, for years, to thwart them.

    Look no further for the reason Boris will win next time out.

    Sadly I think you may have nailed it with that post. People talk about how useless Starmer is, but he isn't Corbyn. On top of which is the golden rule that Govt lose elections, oppositions don't win them and Boris has certainly had enough events for that rule to be confirmed and it isn't happening at all.

    I think Brexit has broken that rule.

    Whether remainers or leavers, whether accepting the result or not most are either pro Boris or anti Boris based on what he did on Brexit still.
    As a corollary to @MarqueeMark post and mine does that mean that if the Tories replace Boris at any time they will lose a lot of votes that they could never get under any other circumstances. If so it makes his position very strong.
    The Conservatives are now a brand, not a party. That brand is Boris. It's possible the Conservatives will reassert themselves as a party at some point, but that will take years. In the meantime Boris is completely safe. Without him the Conservatives are nothing.

    Labour on the other hand is a party without a brand.
    Which incidentally is why Johnson can give his standard £100 000 after dinner speech at the party conference. It's all about him. Nothing else, including government, matters. He's just insulting people now.
    Morning all .... another bash Boris day.. Cant you think.of anything else to say?

    The Boris bashers just can't bear it that the Tories are in the lead in the polls by some way and Boris is PM.. Suck it up. Its going to be that way for some time to come. You should all be concentrating on getting a decent opposition. Its fragmented and it crap.

    Laters
    Its fragmented

    "It's fragmented". The possessive pronoun doesn't make sense here.
    Apologies.. I blame predictve text and my own carelessness
  • IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    The entire point of the burqa is to segregate and dehumanise women. There is nothing acceptable or liberal about it.

    Whether women are forced to wear it against their will because of the threat of [very real] violence, or they wear it voluntarily because their spirits are broken, neither is acceptable.

    If you think me standing up for women is not a good look for me, then I think that looks bad on you. You're no better than HYUFD defending the Catholic Church regarding paedophilia.

    Just because misogyny or paedophilia is cultural or institutionally religious doesn't make it any more acceptable than if its some random person doing that.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    People of sensitive disposition should look away from the Telegraph today

    It is like the Book of the Apocalypse

    From a huge surge in inflation, to a 15 year energy crunch, to flu panic in winter, to semi-permanent shortages, to a crash in the stock market, to a global debt crisis....

    Ooo-er

    So just a normal day in the office for Ambrose Evans-Pritchard?
    it's not AEP for once, it's everyone else.


    Hard to say if they are definitely alarmed, or their editors are desperate for clicks - or perhaps both? It is sufficiently unnerving for me to consider selling some shares, perhaps. But in an era of rising inflation, where does the money go?

    They are quite angry at Boris. as well
    Possibilities.

    1 It's the Telegraph pushing clickbait. Making readers' flesh creep is excellent for sales. The Mail has done it for decades.

    2 It's a subtle form of Project Fear. Push a really gruesome future, and we'll all be thankful when it turns out merely a bit rubbish.

    3 Bad times really are just around the corner, and we're about to see the grimly fascinating battle between an irresistible force (government unpopularity) and an immovable object (BoJo in No 10).
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,169
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    Ridiculous

    Go on Twitter and you will find hundreds of campaigners - Muslim women - fighting against the veil, the niqab and the burqa. Listen to the voices of the Afghan women, terrified of the Taliban- "they will put us in those death shrouds again" (and so they have)

    That you haven't heard these voices is not a great look - for you
    The UK is not Afghanistan. As a rule of thumb, when relatively primitive people, women included, believe religious stuff they really believe it, without the Cof E nonsense about ooo it's all actually a metaphor for something else. I'm happy to believe that UK muslim women wear this stuff because of male bullying rather than it being the will of Allah, but some evidence would be good.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,688
    edited October 2021

    FF43 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Anyone think Polexit is a serious possibility?

    I don't think there will be moves to expel Poland or for it to leave of its own accord. Nevertheless the absence of Rule of Law in Poland and Hungary is an existential threat to the EU, that Brexit turned out not to be. The EU and member states will need to confront the issue.
    So you don't think they'll be Poleaxed?
    Pariah - Poliah? - maybe. I think the EU and member states who feel strongly about this acting on their own account, will aim to create a big enough cost for Poland's lack of respect for treaties and the rule of law, such that the Polish government changes its behaviour. This they will do through the withholding of funds and refusal to cooperate on Polish interests.

    If the Polish government decides to pay the cost, I'm not sure what will happen next.

    To be clear Poland's kangaroo courts aren't acting independently but entirely on government instructions. That's the problem.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,223

    I see that we have been discussing the Canadian / Romanian / Chinese loser.

    Otherwise known as British tennis star Emma Raducanu.

    You Geordies can't stand that she's a Londoner. :wink:
    They Kent deal with it?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,169

    IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    The entire point of the burqa is to segregate and dehumanise women. There is nothing acceptable or liberal about it.

    Whether women are forced to wear it against their will because of the threat of [very real] violence, or they wear it voluntarily because their spirits are broken, neither is acceptable.

    If you think me standing up for women is not a good look for me, then I think that looks bad on you. You're no better than HYUFD defending the Catholic Church regarding paedophilia.

    Just because misogyny or paedophilia is cultural or institutionally religious doesn't make it any more acceptable than if its some random person doing that.
    It's worrying how hard you are increasingly pushing the boundaries outside normal licensing hours. Don't equate me with an apologist for paedophilia, please, and don't backhandedly involve other posters in the accusation either.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    People of sensitive disposition should look away from the Telegraph today

    It is like the Book of the Apocalypse

    From a huge surge in inflation, to a 15 year energy crunch, to flu panic in winter, to semi-permanent shortages, to a crash in the stock market, to a global debt crisis....

    Ooo-er

    So just a normal day in the office for Ambrose Evans-Pritchard?
    it's not AEP for once, it's everyone else.


    Hard to say if they are definitely alarmed, or their editors are desperate for clicks - or perhaps both? It is sufficiently unnerving for me to consider selling some shares, perhaps. But in an era of rising inflation, where does the money go?

    They are quite angry at Boris. as well
    Possibilities.

    1 It's the Telegraph pushing clickbait. Making readers' flesh creep is excellent for sales. The Mail has done it for decades.

    2 It's a subtle form of Project Fear. Push a really gruesome future, and we'll all be thankful when it turns out merely a bit rubbish.

    3 Bad times really are just around the corner, and we're about to see the grimly fascinating battle between an irresistible force (government unpopularity) and an immovable object (BoJo in No 10).
    Or they could have decided that Boris is some kind of cuckoo in the Tory nest and have made it their mission to destroy him. Dave, whose policies in retrospect were far more traditionally Tory (gay marriage aside), was hounded relentlessly for much less.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 23,895
    IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    Here you go


    Ex-Muslims of North America
    @ExmuslimsOrg
    ·
    Oct 4
    The hijab is NOT empowering. #FreeFromHijab #EXMNA


    https://twitter.com/ExmuslimsOrg/status/1445079008333475864?s=20



    @AlinejadMasih
    · Oct 6
    Her name is #MojganKeshavarz. She was jailed by the Islamic Republic of Iran for standing for women’s rights and saying no to compulsory hijab. After more than years, she’s released on a furlough. Be her voice.
    #WhiteWednesdays

    https://twitter.com/arghbd/status/1445838771056955399?s=20


    The moment that i took off my إسدال and my hijab i felt free
    I enjoyed the moment that air touched my skin and my hair
    I felt free
    I'm happy because I'm #FreeFromHijab White heartWhite heart

    https://twitter.com/DollySarkasmo/status/1439691867373936642?s=20
  • Leon said:

    People of sensitive disposition should look away from the Telegraph today

    It is like the Book of the Apocalypse

    From a huge surge in inflation, to a 15 year energy crunch, to flu panic in winter, to semi-permanent shortages, to a crash in the stock market, to a global debt crisis....

    Ooo-er

    The Telegraph got a shout out from Boris the other day. The political significance might be that the Times and Telegraph are both expressing doubts on the sunlit uplands front after Boris's speech to conference.
    Could be a warning for Boris to tone down the mega-optimistic, high-wage utopia stuff. They think that if Boris has a 'green shoots of recovery' moment it could hand Sir Keir victory on a plate.
    During Boris's speech, I posted here that it sounds more like a wishlist than a serious programme. Lots of destinations but no route map, if you like, and I think the more thoughtful analysts are now worried where the government is going.

    It might even be the paradoxical outcome of the Labour conference. The left criticised Starmer for agreeing with the government. Maybe the right is now worried about the corollary, that Labour might as well be running the country.

  • IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    How many Muslim women do you think would continue to wear a niqab or burqa if all of the imams agreed that they didn't need to any more? I can understand why some people would want to cover themselves up, but surely that's a tiny minority? Women in Afghanistan didn't seem to wear them in any of the pictures I've seen from the 50s and 60s
  • LeonLeon Posts: 23,895
    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    Ridiculous

    Go on Twitter and you will find hundreds of campaigners - Muslim women - fighting against the veil, the niqab and the burqa. Listen to the voices of the Afghan women, terrified of the Taliban- "they will put us in those death shrouds again" (and so they have)

    That you haven't heard these voices is not a great look - for you
    The UK is not Afghanistan. As a rule of thumb, when relatively primitive people, women included, believe religious stuff they really believe it, without the Cof E nonsense about ooo it's all actually a metaphor for something else. I'm happy to believe that UK muslim women wear this stuff because of male bullying rather than it being the will of Allah, but some evidence would be good.
    I've just given you evidence. See that American Muslim woman downthread. Unless you think what happens in America cannot possibly happen in the UK?

    I have personally MET Muslim women in the UK who were forced into the hijab and niqab, and hated it, and have rejected it - and are now estranged from their families, or even terrified of them. One of my oldest friends had to rescue his UK Muslim fiance at Heathrow where she was about to be whisked away into an unwanted marriage with a man she had never met in Pakistan

    How can you spend a long, educated life in the UK and not see ANY of this?
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    The entire point of the burqa is to segregate and dehumanise women. There is nothing acceptable or liberal about it.

    Whether women are forced to wear it against their will because of the threat of [very real] violence, or they wear it voluntarily because their spirits are broken, neither is acceptable.

    If you think me standing up for women is not a good look for me, then I think that looks bad on you. You're no better than HYUFD defending the Catholic Church regarding paedophilia.

    Just because misogyny or paedophilia is cultural or institutionally religious doesn't make it any more acceptable than if its some random person doing that.
    It's worrying how hard you are increasingly pushing the boundaries outside normal licensing hours. Don't equate me with an apologist for paedophilia, please, and don't backhandedly involve other posters in the accusation either.
    You got involved with the conversation choosing to denigrate concerns over misogyny.

    Just as a few days earlier HYUFD was denigrating the concerns over paedophilia.

    The common denominator is excusing because of "religion" that which you would never normally excuse.

    Misogyny is repugnant. The burqa is misogynistic, pure and simple. Anyone not prepared to stand up for women should be utterly ashamed of themselves.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,169

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    The entire point of the burqa is to segregate and dehumanise women. There is nothing acceptable or liberal about it.

    Whether women are forced to wear it against their will because of the threat of [very real] violence, or they wear it voluntarily because their spirits are broken, neither is acceptable.

    If you think me standing up for women is not a good look for me, then I think that looks bad on you. You're no better than HYUFD defending the Catholic Church regarding paedophilia.

    Just because misogyny or paedophilia is cultural or institutionally religious doesn't make it any more acceptable than if its some random person doing that.
    It's worrying how hard you are increasingly pushing the boundaries outside normal licensing hours. Don't equate me with an apologist for paedophilia, please, and don't backhandedly involve other posters in the accusation either.
    You got involved with the conversation choosing to denigrate concerns over misogyny.

    Just as a few days earlier HYUFD was denigrating the concerns over paedophilia.

    The common denominator is excusing because of "religion" that which you would never normally excuse.

    Misogyny is repugnant. The burqa is misogynistic, pure and simple. Anyone not prepared to stand up for women should be utterly ashamed of themselves.
    Piss off.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited October 2021
    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    Ridiculous

    Go on Twitter and you will find hundreds of campaigners - Muslim women - fighting against the veil, the niqab and the burqa. Listen to the voices of the Afghan women, terrified of the Taliban- "they will put us in those death shrouds again" (and so they have)

    That you haven't heard these voices is not a great look - for you
    The UK is not Afghanistan. As a rule of thumb, when relatively primitive people, women included, believe religious stuff they really believe it, without the Cof E nonsense about ooo it's all actually a metaphor for something else. I'm happy to believe that UK muslim women wear this stuff because of male bullying rather than it being the will of Allah, but some evidence would be good.
    Organised religion in this context IS male bullying. 🤷‍♂️
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    The entire point of the burqa is to segregate and dehumanise women. There is nothing acceptable or liberal about it.

    Whether women are forced to wear it against their will because of the threat of [very real] violence, or they wear it voluntarily because their spirits are broken, neither is acceptable.

    If you think me standing up for women is not a good look for me, then I think that looks bad on you. You're no better than HYUFD defending the Catholic Church regarding paedophilia.

    Just because misogyny or paedophilia is cultural or institutionally religious doesn't make it any more acceptable than if its some random person doing that.
    It's worrying how hard you are increasingly pushing the boundaries outside normal licensing hours. Don't equate me with an apologist for paedophilia, please, and don't backhandedly involve other posters in the accusation either.
    You got involved with the conversation choosing to denigrate concerns over misogyny.

    Just as a few days earlier HYUFD was denigrating the concerns over paedophilia.

    The common denominator is excusing because of "religion" that which you would never normally excuse.

    Misogyny is repugnant. The burqa is misogynistic, pure and simple. Anyone not prepared to stand up for women should be utterly ashamed of themselves.
    Piss off.
    You first.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,739

    IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    How many Muslim women do you think would continue to wear a niqab or burqa if all of the imams agreed that they didn't need to any more? I can understand why some people would want to cover themselves up, but surely that's a tiny minority? Women in Afghanistan didn't seem to wear them in any of the pictures I've seen from the 50s and 60s
    It is the spread of Saudi money and influence.
    Such practices were almost absent until relatively recently in most of the Muslim world.
    Still. Our government loves the Saudis.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    Ridiculous

    Go on Twitter and you will find hundreds of campaigners - Muslim women - fighting against the veil, the niqab and the burqa. Listen to the voices of the Afghan women, terrified of the Taliban- "they will put us in those death shrouds again" (and so they have)

    That you haven't heard these voices is not a great look - for you
    The UK is not Afghanistan. As a rule of thumb, when relatively primitive people, women included, believe religious stuff they really believe it, without the Cof E nonsense about ooo it's all actually a metaphor for something else. I'm happy to believe that UK muslim women wear this stuff because of male bullying rather than it being the will of Allah, but some evidence would be good.
    Some pre-primitive female people in Afghanistan

  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    People of sensitive disposition should look away from the Telegraph today

    It is like the Book of the Apocalypse

    From a huge surge in inflation, to a 15 year energy crunch, to flu panic in winter, to semi-permanent shortages, to a crash in the stock market, to a global debt crisis....

    Ooo-er

    So just a normal day in the office for Ambrose Evans-Pritchard?
    it's not AEP for once, it's everyone else.


    Hard to say if they are definitely alarmed, or their editors are desperate for clicks - or perhaps both? It is sufficiently unnerving for me to consider selling some shares, perhaps. But in an era of rising inflation, where does the money go?

    They are quite angry at Boris. as well
    Possibilities.

    1 It's the Telegraph pushing clickbait. Making readers' flesh creep is excellent for sales. The Mail has done it for decades.

    2 It's a subtle form of Project Fear. Push a really gruesome future, and we'll all be thankful when it turns out merely a bit rubbish.

    3 Bad times really are just around the corner, and we're about to see the grimly fascinating battle between an irresistible force (government unpopularity) and an immovable object (BoJo in No 10).
    Or they could have decided that Boris is some kind of cuckoo in the Tory nest and have made it their mission to destroy him. Dave, whose policies in retrospect were far more traditionally Tory (gay marriage aside), was hounded relentlessly for much less.
    When the Telegraph used this front page image, I did wonder if it was an angry scribble across BoJo's face.



    But of course BoJo let the Telegraph down, despite all they did for him.

    It's what BoJo does.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 23,895
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    The entire point of the burqa is to segregate and dehumanise women. There is nothing acceptable or liberal about it.

    Whether women are forced to wear it against their will because of the threat of [very real] violence, or they wear it voluntarily because their spirits are broken, neither is acceptable.

    If you think me standing up for women is not a good look for me, then I think that looks bad on you. You're no better than HYUFD defending the Catholic Church regarding paedophilia.

    Just because misogyny or paedophilia is cultural or institutionally religious doesn't make it any more acceptable than if its some random person doing that.
    It's worrying how hard you are increasingly pushing the boundaries outside normal licensing hours. Don't equate me with an apologist for paedophilia, please, and don't backhandedly involve other posters in the accusation either.
    You got involved with the conversation choosing to denigrate concerns over misogyny.

    Just as a few days earlier HYUFD was denigrating the concerns over paedophilia.

    The common denominator is excusing because of "religion" that which you would never normally excuse.

    Misogyny is repugnant. The burqa is misogynistic, pure and simple. Anyone not prepared to stand up for women should be utterly ashamed of themselves.
    Piss off.
    You have embarrassed yourself again. You made a ridiculous claim


    "It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all."

    How could you even write that? How could anyone with an inquiring brain and the ability to read not understand that many many Muslim women hate the imposition of these clothes, in the West, as in the Islamic world?

    It takes 3 minutes to educate yourself on social media, and learn this. You couldn't be bothered
  • IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    How many Muslim women do you think would continue to wear a niqab or burqa if all of the imams agreed that they didn't need to any more? I can understand why some people would want to cover themselves up, but surely that's a tiny minority? Women in Afghanistan didn't seem to wear them in any of the pictures I've seen from the 50s and 60s
    It is a fact though (and I'm probably going to get it in the neck for saying this) that a lot of Muslim women are very devout, very conservative and genuinely think that the Muslim garb is the only thing to be seen in. Whether they constitute the majority, and whether their attitude is the result of 'brainwashing', is a different matter, but such people do exist in sizeable numbers.
  • dixiedean said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    How many Muslim women do you think would continue to wear a niqab or burqa if all of the imams agreed that they didn't need to any more? I can understand why some people would want to cover themselves up, but surely that's a tiny minority? Women in Afghanistan didn't seem to wear them in any of the pictures I've seen from the 50s and 60s
    It is the spread of Saudi money and influence.
    Such practices were almost absent until relatively recently in most of the Muslim world.
    Still. Our government loves the Saudis.
    Niqabs for Newcastle?

    In fact, that should definitely be the (probably unofficial!) nickname for the Newcastle Ladies team
  • Misogyny question, a serious one. Was Dominic Raab just tone deaf when he talked about women battering men or did he simply not understand the word misogyny?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,383

    <

    I agree with you on the libertarianism, and incidentally so too did the now-PM in that infamous article, but the entire point of the burqa is about coercive control and segregating and dehumanising women. There is no flipside to it.

    So while you're addressing your concerns about the government getting involved [and I completely agree with that] it seems you have nothing to say about the repugnant misogynistic evil that it is. Do you have anything to say on that subject, or do you just want to turn a blind eye to that and fire your ire just on a hypothetical future government?

    I feel even more strongly that it's evil for people to dictate what their relatives must wear. I don't agree with the "entire point" since I've heard convincing argument from women who prefer it ("away from all those lecherous eyes"), and I've no way of telling if that's a common view among wearers or whether most are subject to coercion, or somewhere in betweem ("my friends all do so I'd feel wrong if I didn't"). But having refuges for women who *are* being subject to coercive control is very important.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 23,895

    IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    How many Muslim women do you think would continue to wear a niqab or burqa if all of the imams agreed that they didn't need to any more? I can understand why some people would want to cover themselves up, but surely that's a tiny minority? Women in Afghanistan didn't seem to wear them in any of the pictures I've seen from the 50s and 60s
    It is a fact though (and I'm probably going to get it in the neck for saying this) that a lot of Muslim women are very devout, very conservative and genuinely think that the Muslim garb is the only thing to be seen in. Whether they constitute the majority, and whether their attitude is the result of 'brainwashing', is a different matter, but such people do exist in sizeable numbers.
    That's surely true, as well, and we cannot see into their souls and know why they feel that way

    But we DO have the evidence of the weeping women at Kabul airport, thousands of them, desperate to escape the Taliban because they would be imprisoned in their shrouds, once more

    And when the Taliban were swept away in 2001, what did many of the women of Kabul do? - they tore off their face-veils with tearful joy

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,223
    Dear me, it's very bad tempered on here this afternoon. Not at all like normal PB (well, not when everyone's least favourite former army officer is absent, anyway).

    Watch this and cheer yourselves up.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr-8Bzb6-g8
  • IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    How many Muslim women do you think would continue to wear a niqab or burqa if all of the imams agreed that they didn't need to any more? I can understand why some people would want to cover themselves up, but surely that's a tiny minority? Women in Afghanistan didn't seem to wear them in any of the pictures I've seen from the 50s and 60s
    It is a fact though (and I'm probably going to get it in the neck for saying this) that a lot of Muslim women are very devout, very conservative and genuinely think that the Muslim garb is the only thing to be seen in. Whether they constitute the majority, and whether their attitude is the result of 'brainwashing', is a different matter, but such people do exist in sizeable numbers.
    Surely the imams could change it all then?
  • IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    How many Muslim women do you think would continue to wear a niqab or burqa if all of the imams agreed that they didn't need to any more? I can understand why some people would want to cover themselves up, but surely that's a tiny minority? Women in Afghanistan didn't seem to wear them in any of the pictures I've seen from the 50s and 60s
    It is a fact though (and I'm probably going to get it in the neck for saying this) that a lot of Muslim women are very devout, very conservative and genuinely think that the Muslim garb is the only thing to be seen in. Whether they constitute the majority, and whether their attitude is the result of 'brainwashing', is a different matter, but such people do exist in sizeable numbers.
    Surely the imams could change it all then?
    Maybe. Or there attitude might be so entrenched that they'd think 'No true imam' would ask them to do it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 77,116

    Misogyny question, a serious one. Was Dominic Raab just tone deaf when he talked about women battering men or did he simply not understand the word misogyny?

    Always bet on people being dumb.
  • ydoethur said:

    Dear me, it's very bad tempered on here this afternoon. Not at all like normal PB (well, not when everyone's least favourite former army officer is absent, anyway).

    Watch this and cheer yourselves up.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr-8Bzb6-g8

    Who's PB's favourite former army officer, or any of the ones in between for that matter?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,223
    edited October 2021

    ydoethur said:

    Dear me, it's very bad tempered on here this afternoon. Not at all like normal PB (well, not when everyone's least favourite former army officer is absent, anyway).

    Watch this and cheer yourselves up.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr-8Bzb6-g8

    Who's PB's favourite former army officer, or any of the ones in between for that matter?
    Well, we all find Dura Ace funny, even if he was technically Navy.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    How many Muslim women do you think would continue to wear a niqab or burqa if all of the imams agreed that they didn't need to any more? I can understand why some people would want to cover themselves up, but surely that's a tiny minority? Women in Afghanistan didn't seem to wear them in any of the pictures I've seen from the 50s and 60s
    It is a fact though (and I'm probably going to get it in the neck for saying this) that a lot of Muslim women are very devout, very conservative and genuinely think that the Muslim garb is the only thing to be seen in. Whether they constitute the majority, and whether their attitude is the result of 'brainwashing', is a different matter, but such people do exist in sizeable numbers.
    Surely the imams could change it all then?
    Maybe. Or there attitude might be so entrenched that they'd think 'No true imam' would ask them to do it.
    If so entrenched their attitude would surely compel them to obey their imam? And if all the imams said it...
  • IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    How many Muslim women do you think would continue to wear a niqab or burqa if all of the imams agreed that they didn't need to any more? I can understand why some people would want to cover themselves up, but surely that's a tiny minority? Women in Afghanistan didn't seem to wear them in any of the pictures I've seen from the 50s and 60s
    It is a fact though (and I'm probably going to get it in the neck for saying this) that a lot of Muslim women are very devout, very conservative and genuinely think that the Muslim garb is the only thing to be seen in. Whether they constitute the majority, and whether their attitude is the result of 'brainwashing', is a different matter, but such people do exist in sizeable numbers.
    Surely the imams could change it all then?
    I thing the idea that imams would form a homogenised single voice of Islam in any circumstance is somewhat simplistic. None of the other great world religions manage that level of consensus (I use the word great advisedly).
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 34,019
    edited October 2021
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dear me, it's very bad tempered on here this afternoon. Not at all like normal PB (well, not when everyone's least favourite former army officer is absent, anyway).

    Watch this and cheer yourselves up.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr-8Bzb6-g8

    Who's PB's favourite former army officer, or any of the ones in between for that matter?
    Well, we all find Dura Ace funny, even if he was technically Navy.
    I believe Dura Ace would boot the term 'technically' in the baws.
  • Misogyny question, a serious one. Was Dominic Raab just tone deaf when he talked about women battering men or did he simply not understand the word misogyny?

    Could have been just a knee-jerk reaction. The anti-feminist 'but what about women who beat up men?' trope has been floating around the fringes of the British Right for years, and I'm sure Raab has immersed himself in all that. Immediately when the subject arose he just unthinkingly brandished an old saw.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,223

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dear me, it's very bad tempered on here this afternoon. Not at all like normal PB (well, not when everyone's least favourite former army officer is absent, anyway).

    Watch this and cheer yourselves up.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr-8Bzb6-g8

    Who's PB's favourite former army officer, or any of the ones in between for that matter?
    Well, we all find Dura Ace funny, even if he was technically Navy.
    I believe Dura Ace would boot the term 'technically' in the baws.
    To avoid my being knocked down by a very expensive car with bits falling off it, shall we compromise on 'armed forces'?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,739
    edited October 2021

    IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    How many Muslim women do you think would continue to wear a niqab or burqa if all of the imams agreed that they didn't need to any more? I can understand why some people would want to cover themselves up, but surely that's a tiny minority? Women in Afghanistan didn't seem to wear them in any of the pictures I've seen from the 50s and 60s
    It is a fact though (and I'm probably going to get it in the neck for saying this) that a lot of Muslim women are very devout, very conservative and genuinely think that the Muslim garb is the only thing to be seen in. Whether they constitute the majority, and whether their attitude is the result of 'brainwashing', is a different matter, but such people do exist in sizeable numbers.
    Surely the imams could change it all then?
    Yes, but.
    In Sunni Islam Imam is merely the bloke (almost always) who leads prayers. It isn't a formal position, in the sense of being a profession with Imam exams and stuff. Nor is there a hierarchy of Imams. It is comparable really to Protestantism as opposed to Catholicism. You can find everything from pacifist Quakers, mild mannered CofE vicars, through to gun waving Evangelical nutters.
    So, you can find as many opinions as there are Imams.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,383
    edited October 2021
    MrEd said:



    It is not the state's right to tell people what to wear. The state may argue, in the case of full face coverings etc, that it makes the job of surveillance, public safety etc harder but, if that is the case, the state should make that case more openly.

    I ask on @NickPalmer's comment about super-libertarian on such matters whether he would be happy if people wore T-shirts with right-wing messages or would that fall under the situation of 'for basic decency'? It is also worth pointing out that some people think that a full burqa covering is also against basic decency (I don't). As usual, once you introduce caveats, it all becomes about who gets to set the rules as to what is decent and what is not.

    The test should be the law on freedom of expression. I'm fine with people wearing any legal statement on their T-shirts, including right-wing ones. Anything they can legally say out loud (unlike "kill the .....s", for instance) they should be able to say in print

    I do agree with a requirement to remove face covering in special cases - medical exams, court appearances and so on. Where possible it should be discreet - I can see a jury and the judge should be able to see the witness, but they can reasonably be asked to be shielded from random court spectators.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    How many Muslim women do you think would continue to wear a niqab or burqa if all of the imams agreed that they didn't need to any more? I can understand why some people would want to cover themselves up, but surely that's a tiny minority? Women in Afghanistan didn't seem to wear them in any of the pictures I've seen from the 50s and 60s
    It is a fact though (and I'm probably going to get it in the neck for saying this) that a lot of Muslim women are very devout, very conservative and genuinely think that the Muslim garb is the only thing to be seen in. Whether they constitute the majority, and whether their attitude is the result of 'brainwashing', is a different matter, but such people do exist in sizeable numbers.
    Surely the imams could change it all then?
    I thing the idea that imams would form a homogenised single voice of Islam in any circumstance is somewhat simplistic. None of the other great world religions manage that level of consensus (I use the word great advisedly).
    Of course they wouldn't, but the truth of the statement - that women only wear the cursed things because they're ordered to by men - should be the most important thing for anybody with even the faintest empathy for feminist causes.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,890
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    How many Muslim women do you think would continue to wear a niqab or burqa if all of the imams agreed that they didn't need to any more? I can understand why some people would want to cover themselves up, but surely that's a tiny minority? Women in Afghanistan didn't seem to wear them in any of the pictures I've seen from the 50s and 60s
    It is a fact though (and I'm probably going to get it in the neck for saying this) that a lot of Muslim women are very devout, very conservative and genuinely think that the Muslim garb is the only thing to be seen in. Whether they constitute the majority, and whether their attitude is the result of 'brainwashing', is a different matter, but such people do exist in sizeable numbers.
    That's surely true, as well, and we cannot see into their souls and know why they feel that way

    But we DO have the evidence of the weeping women at Kabul airport, thousands of them, desperate to escape the Taliban because they would be imprisoned in their shrouds, once more

    And when the Taliban were swept away in 2001, what did many of the women of Kabul do? - they tore off their face-veils with tearful joy

    You only really know what people want when a non-violent, multi-party democracy in a free society with the rule of law allows people to vote, say and do what they wish. I am struggling to think of one where women have not achieved a choice in the matter. The rest is guesswork, but maybe that gives us a clue.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,117
    Mr. Dawning, a very large minority (35-45% perhaps) of domestic abuse is women on men.

    There was a Canadian study a few years ago that found a majority of abusers were women, although that was an unusual finding.

    It's absolutely right that people don't just assume women are victims and men the perpetrators of domestic abuse, whether violence, coercion, financial control or suchlike. (And that's before we get into gay and lesbian relationships).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,223

    IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    How many Muslim women do you think would continue to wear a niqab or burqa if all of the imams agreed that they didn't need to any more? I can understand why some people would want to cover themselves up, but surely that's a tiny minority? Women in Afghanistan didn't seem to wear them in any of the pictures I've seen from the 50s and 60s
    It is a fact though (and I'm probably going to get it in the neck for saying this) that a lot of Muslim women are very devout, very conservative and genuinely think that the Muslim garb is the only thing to be seen in. Whether they constitute the majority, and whether their attitude is the result of 'brainwashing', is a different matter, but such people do exist in sizeable numbers.
    Surely the imams could change it all then?
    I thing the idea that imams would form a homogenised single voice of Islam in any circumstance is somewhat simplistic. None of the other great world religions manage that level of consensus (I use the word great advisedly).
    And of course there is no consensus even among Muslims on wearing the burkha, niqab or even hijab.

    That said, they are far more homogenous than Christianity, Buddhism or even Hinduism. A Sunni and Shia are still members of the Ummah and still subscribe to the same set of beliefs, notably the prophethood of Muhammed and the divine inspiration of the Quran. It's not like Christianity where you don't even have agreement on the status of Jesus or the nature of God.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,739
    And one huge problem is Saudi is training Imams, funding them, and offering them for free to impoverished parts of the Muslim world.
    They bring with them their extreme views of Wah'habism into societies which have never previously interpreted Islam in any such way.
    But we love the Saudis for obvious reasons.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,169
    ydoethur said:

    Dear me, it's very bad tempered on here this afternoon. Not at all like normal PB (well, not when everyone's least favourite former army officer is absent, anyway).

    Watch this and cheer yourselves up.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr-8Bzb6-g8

    IDS posts here?
  • IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    How many Muslim women do you think would continue to wear a niqab or burqa if all of the imams agreed that they didn't need to any more? I can understand why some people would want to cover themselves up, but surely that's a tiny minority? Women in Afghanistan didn't seem to wear them in any of the pictures I've seen from the 50s and 60s
    It is a fact though (and I'm probably going to get it in the neck for saying this) that a lot of Muslim women are very devout, very conservative and genuinely think that the Muslim garb is the only thing to be seen in. Whether they constitute the majority, and whether their attitude is the result of 'brainwashing', is a different matter, but such people do exist in sizeable numbers.
    Surely the imams could change it all then?
    I thing the idea that imams would form a homogenised single voice of Islam in any circumstance is somewhat simplistic. None of the other great world religions manage that level of consensus (I use the word great advisedly).
    Of course they wouldn't, but the truth of the statement - that women only wear the cursed things because they're ordered to by men - should be the most important thing for anybody with even the faintest empathy for feminist causes.
    Male pressure may be a strong, possibly the strongest, reason that women wear a burka, but I would be more surprised than a Scottish Tory winning a FPTP election in Glasgow if that was the 'only' reason.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 29,794

    ping said:



    Doing it for these women, and empowering them with their western liberal rights is one thing. I guess I agree. But my main argument is different;

    They should be forced to ditch the burka for *US* - for the shared concept of an *US.*

    A recognition that they live in the same society as the rest of us. Like not wearing your pajamas when you go to the supermarket. Or taking the effort to learn English. It’s about basic decency toward their fellow countryman/women.

    I don’t care if it’s seen by liberals as authoritarian. It’s this argument that, I think, cuts through and has broad support (in a way that the liberal womens rights argument fails).

    Let’s be honest about it and not pretend we’re doing it entirely for them. A decent, inclusive case can be made to legislate to ditch the burka. It’s cultural separatism and not part of Britain and our shared British values. It offends and fragments our sense of us.

    Speak for yourself. I object to the Government telling me what *I* can wear, never mind Muslim women. Today it's the burka, tomorrow it'll be T-shirts with messages that might annoy someone. I get super-libertarian about this sort of thing - it is None of the Government's Business What We Wear (bar basic decency).

    Obviously if people are forced to wear a burka that's something else, and there are laws against coercive control. But the idea that there is One True Standard to which we must all conform is positively Maoist, and if the Government tries to impose one it can fuck right off.
    I agree with you on the libertarianism, and incidentally so too did the now-PM in that infamous article, but the entire point of the burqa is about coercive control and segregating and dehumanising women. There is no flipside to it.

    So while you're addressing your concerns about the government getting involved [and I completely agree with that] it seems you have nothing to say about the repugnant misogynistic evil that it is. Do you have anything to say on that subject, or do you just want to turn a blind eye to that and fire your ire just on a hypothetical future government?
    No role for government in fighting evil? Odd stance. Are we leaving it to Batman?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,890

    Misogyny question, a serious one. Was Dominic Raab just tone deaf when he talked about women battering men or did he simply not understand the word misogyny?

    Could have been just a knee-jerk reaction. The anti-feminist 'but what about women who beat up men?' trope has been floating around the fringes of the British Right for years, and I'm sure Raab has immersed himself in all that. Immediately when the subject arose he just unthinkingly brandished an old saw.
    Raab is pretty good at many of the political interview arts, but comes across slightly as if he is politically programmed Martian rather than politically programmed humanoid, so that occasionally his algorithm produces something that can't tell the difference between a bat for playing cricket and a bat that hangs upside down in caves - which tends to indicate that a humanoid mind is not operating the controls.

    Like a Martian wouldn't know that stuff comes into the UK at Dover would they?

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,169

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    Ridiculous

    Go on Twitter and you will find hundreds of campaigners - Muslim women - fighting against the veil, the niqab and the burqa. Listen to the voices of the Afghan women, terrified of the Taliban- "they will put us in those death shrouds again" (and so they have)

    That you haven't heard these voices is not a great look - for you
    The UK is not Afghanistan. As a rule of thumb, when relatively primitive people, women included, believe religious stuff they really believe it, without the Cof E nonsense about ooo it's all actually a metaphor for something else. I'm happy to believe that UK muslim women wear this stuff because of male bullying rather than it being the will of Allah, but some evidence would be good.
    Some pre-primitive female people in Afghanistan

    I think the argument implied there is, some people are not religious, therefore no one is?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,169
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    The entire point of the burqa is to segregate and dehumanise women. There is nothing acceptable or liberal about it.

    Whether women are forced to wear it against their will because of the threat of [very real] violence, or they wear it voluntarily because their spirits are broken, neither is acceptable.

    If you think me standing up for women is not a good look for me, then I think that looks bad on you. You're no better than HYUFD defending the Catholic Church regarding paedophilia.

    Just because misogyny or paedophilia is cultural or institutionally religious doesn't make it any more acceptable than if its some random person doing that.
    It's worrying how hard you are increasingly pushing the boundaries outside normal licensing hours. Don't equate me with an apologist for paedophilia, please, and don't backhandedly involve other posters in the accusation either.
    You got involved with the conversation choosing to denigrate concerns over misogyny.

    Just as a few days earlier HYUFD was denigrating the concerns over paedophilia.

    The common denominator is excusing because of "religion" that which you would never normally excuse.

    Misogyny is repugnant. The burqa is misogynistic, pure and simple. Anyone not prepared to stand up for women should be utterly ashamed of themselves.
    Piss off.
    You have embarrassed yourself again. You made a ridiculous claim


    "It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all."

    How could you even write that? How could anyone with an inquiring brain and the ability to read not understand that many many Muslim women hate the imposition of these clothes, in the West, as in the Islamic world?

    It takes 3 minutes to educate yourself on social media, and learn this. You couldn't be bothered
    Yeah sure. Hard UK evidence still in short supply. And the stronger your case, the more carefully we must test its limits. It is highly probable that at least one black man raped one white woman during the heyday of the kkk in the US. The overgeneralising of such events by the kkk led to somewhat undesirable results. PT's psychotic outburst du jour boils down to "male muslim, therefore misogynist, and anyone who disagrees with me is OK with child rape." A little perspective would be good.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    Ridiculous

    Go on Twitter and you will find hundreds of campaigners - Muslim women - fighting against the veil, the niqab and the burqa. Listen to the voices of the Afghan women, terrified of the Taliban- "they will put us in those death shrouds again" (and so they have)

    That you haven't heard these voices is not a great look - for you
    The UK is not Afghanistan. As a rule of thumb, when relatively primitive people, women included, believe religious stuff they really believe it, without the Cof E nonsense about ooo it's all actually a metaphor for something else. I'm happy to believe that UK muslim women wear this stuff because of male bullying rather than it being the will of Allah, but some evidence would be good.
    Some pre-primitive female people in Afghanistan

    I think the argument implied there is, some people are not religious, therefore no one is?
    Some women do seem happy being exploited in male dominated cults.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,169

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    Ridiculous

    Go on Twitter and you will find hundreds of campaigners - Muslim women - fighting against the veil, the niqab and the burqa. Listen to the voices of the Afghan women, terrified of the Taliban- "they will put us in those death shrouds again" (and so they have)

    That you haven't heard these voices is not a great look - for you
    The UK is not Afghanistan. As a rule of thumb, when relatively primitive people, women included, believe religious stuff they really believe it, without the Cof E nonsense about ooo it's all actually a metaphor for something else. I'm happy to believe that UK muslim women wear this stuff because of male bullying rather than it being the will of Allah, but some evidence would be good.
    Some pre-primitive female people in Afghanistan

    I think the argument implied there is, some people are not religious, therefore no one is?
    Some women do seem happy being exploited in male dominated cults.
    You are an unparalleled master of the non sequitur.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,169
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I wonder what it is about hard leftwingers that they wish to change every conversation to being about Jews? 🤔

    Priests abusing children is wrong.
    "Conservative" Muslims abusing women is wrong
    What have Hasidic Jews done to be dragged into the conversation?

    The moral elision is all from you. It isn't impossible that some muslim men force some women to wear burqas against their will, but assuming that to be the case without a shred of evidence is not a great look at all, at all.
    Ridiculous

    Go on Twitter and you will find hundreds of campaigners - Muslim women - fighting against the veil, the niqab and the burqa. Listen to the voices of the Afghan women, terrified of the Taliban- "they will put us in those death shrouds again" (and so they have)

    That you haven't heard these voices is not a great look - for you
    The UK is not Afghanistan. As a rule of thumb, when relatively primitive people, women included, believe religious stuff they really believe it, without the Cof E nonsense about ooo it's all actually a metaphor for something else. I'm happy to believe that UK muslim women wear this stuff because of male bullying rather than it being the will of Allah, but some evidence would be good.
    Some pre-primitive female people in Afghanistan

    I think the argument implied there is, some people are not religious, therefore no one is?
    Some women do seem happy being exploited in male dominated cults.
    You are an unparalleled master of the non sequitur.
    ETA and what is your position on the gender of the people in the photo?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 29,794

    Misogyny question, a serious one. Was Dominic Raab just tone deaf when he talked about women battering men or did he simply not understand the word misogyny?

    Could have been just a knee-jerk reaction. The anti-feminist 'but what about women who beat up men?' trope has been floating around the fringes of the British Right for years, and I'm sure Raab has immersed himself in all that. Immediately when the subject arose he just unthinkingly brandished an old saw.
    Could be. Although I note that our Morris has chipped in with the same sentiment - and often does - so it can't be just an anti-feminist trope of the right.

    Re Raab, the way he was talking about "insults and misogyny" I got the distinct impression he didn't quite know what the word meant.
  • Unpatriotic homewreckers under (or more likely on top of) the bed!



  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,500
    Afternoon all :)

    If you've wondered where I've been the past fortnight - well, you're wrong. Mrs Stodge and I have taken our first post-pandemic holiday, cruising to Spain and Portugal for 14 days on MV Iona, 185,000 tons of German engineering (most of the cruise ships seem to be German or Italian).

    It's a gorgeous ship and at only 60% capacity (around 3,000 passengers instead of the usual 5,000) plenty of room to move and a lot of space to avoid the totally atrocious entertainment (when you have an audience of British people in their 60s, 70s and 80s, that should be your musical range not the chart toppers of 2021 - it's a salient example often forgotten in politics of pitching to your audience).

    For Spain, we were allowed on and off without checks but Portugal would only allow excursions and those with an antigen test 48 hours in advance so we stayed on board - to be fair, Lisbon is a lovely city.

    On board, masks were mandatory when moving round enclosed spaces but obviously not in your cabin and not on the outside spaces. I thought that was a bit overdone as we had all been doubly vaccinated and had a final antigen test before boarding. The staff wore both masks and gloves and it must have been difficult for them.

    There's a line here - I heard rumours on board Iona's sister ship Britannia had been turned away from Civitavecchia (a ghastly port) and there had been cases of Covid which had led to passengers being taken off the ship. I've seen no independent confirmation and suspect it may be scuttlebutt.

    In Spain, mask wearing was about the same as the UK - strong among older people but scarce among the young.
  • https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1446123295904993284

    This is surely indicating something very wrong with the Tory vote, all the YouGov metrics look terrible and yet they have Labour doing the worst of any pollster
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,500
    I'll comment on the emergent philosophy of Johnsonism another time though some seem already to have noted some of the apparent inconsistencies in the basic ethos.

    The world has changed and yet it hasn't - a glorious autumn days and people out and about in large numbers and wanting to travel but the blight of engineering works prevents people being able to enjoy their leisure time. The train up from Southampton (an hourly service instead of the usual half hour and taking two hours rather than a hour and a quarter because the lines from Woking to Basingstoke were closed) was as packed as any commuter service (SWR seem to have no concept people travelling on cruises from Southampton might have luggage and their trains are absurdly short of luggage storage).

    It's time we re-thought track engineering works and maintenance - should they be moved to overnight or perhaps Mondays and Fridays if the commuter traffic is quieter?

    Train operators and Network Rail should be prioritising leisure travel and providing enhanced services at weekends and compensating by cutting back on weekday services (the old joke about SWR providing a 12-coach service from London to Basingstoke on a Monday as 12 people wanted to travel).
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,169
    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    If you've wondered where I've been the past fortnight - well, you're wrong. Mrs Stodge and I have taken our first post-pandemic holiday, cruising to Spain and Portugal for 14 days on MV Iona, 185,000 tons of German engineering (most of the cruise ships seem to be German or Italian).

    It's a gorgeous ship and at only 60% capacity (around 3,000 passengers instead of the usual 5,000) plenty of room to move and a lot of space to avoid the totally atrocious entertainment (when you have an audience of British people in their 60s, 70s and 80s, that should be your musical range not the chart toppers of 2021 - it's a salient example often forgotten in politics of pitching to your audience).

    For Spain, we were allowed on and off without checks but Portugal would only allow excursions and those with an antigen test 48 hours in advance so we stayed on board - to be fair, Lisbon is a lovely city.

    On board, masks were mandatory when moving round enclosed spaces but obviously not in your cabin and not on the outside spaces. I thought that was a bit overdone as we had all been doubly vaccinated and had a final antigen test before boarding. The staff wore both masks and gloves and it must have been difficult for them.

    There's a line here - I heard rumours on board Iona's sister ship Britannia had been turned away from Civitavecchia (a ghastly port) and there had been cases of Covid which had led to passengers being taken off the ship. I've seen no independent confirmation and suspect it may be scuttlebutt.

    In Spain, mask wearing was about the same as the UK - strong among older people but scarce among the young.

    Ship powered by LNG it says here, hope they bought forward.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,673
    dixiedean said:

    And one huge problem is Saudi is training Imams, funding them, and offering them for free to impoverished parts of the Muslim world.
    They bring with them their extreme views of Wah'habism into societies which have never previously interpreted Islam in any such way.
    But we love the Saudis for obvious reasons.

    There has been conservative Islam across the whole Muslim world long before the House of Saud got its oil money. The reality is that, according to Islam's own texts, the founder of Islam frequently went to war, had his enemies assassinated, gave away female POWs as slaves to his followers, had intimate relations with a pre-teen, and taught that women should have fewer rights than men under the law. People love to compare this to the worse bits of the Bible. But Islam has no message of radical inclusion of outsiders, separation of the divine from the secular power, or elevation of pacifism. All of these are central to Christianity.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,739

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1446123295904993284

    This is surely indicating something very wrong with the Tory vote, all the YouGov metrics look terrible and yet they have Labour doing the worst of any pollster

    Tbf to YouGov, they show Labour worst because they show Green best.
    They don't show any difference in the Tory share.
    However, I'm voting Labour for lower taxes is a sign of the rabbit hole Brexit has taken us down.
This discussion has been closed.