Got through to HMRC. Top tip for contacting government. Find out when the phone line opens.
Yep or get yourself registered as an agent (although you have to wait on that now whereas it used to be instant). They didn't seem to object to me doing it even though I was just doing it for my family members.
I do not wish to speculate about the MP being investigated for alleged sexual offences.
But am I the only one a touch troubled by the order to stay away from Parliament during the investigation?
If there is a concern about interference with witnesses or evidence, that is one thing. But in the absence of that, is this really acceptable? First, it risks identifying the person or putting others under unfair suspicion. Second, why should someone who has not even been charged be prevented from doing a key part of their job? A person is innocent until proven guilty. Keeping someone away even when not charged is implying that they are somehow in the wrong and when they do come back, assuming no charge, that will hang round them.
I realise there are other considerations. But lots of people remain free while investigations carry on and we do not expect them to stop working and be shunned by society.
I do worry that we are in danger of denuding the very precious idea of "innocence until proven guilty" of any real meaning and creating a whole new set of unfairnesses. It is precisely because sexual offence allegations are so serious that we should be wary of a "judgment first, trial later" approach.
Or am I alone in worrying about this?
You are not alone - I find it very troubling indeed. Until charged everything should be done to avoid jigsaw identification. And he has a job to do to represent his constituents. Does he get to vote? Take part in committees? I can understand that there might be an issue if the person accusing him is also at parliament, but this is not the way to handle it.
I do not wish to speculate about the MP being investigated for alleged sexual offences.
But am I the only one a touch troubled by the order to stay away from Parliament during the investigation?
If there is a concern about interference with witnesses or evidence, that is one thing. But in the absence of that, is this really acceptable? First, it risks identifying the person or putting others under unfair suspicion. Second, why should someone who has not even been charged be prevented from doing a key part of their job? A person is innocent until proven guilty. Keeping someone away even when not charged is implying that they are somehow in the wrong and when they do come back, assuming no charge, that will hang round them.
I realise there are other considerations. But lots of people remain free while investigations carry on and we do not expect them to stop working and be shunned by society.
I do worry that we are in danger of denuding the very precious idea of "innocence until proven guilty" of any real meaning and creating a whole new set of unfairnesses. It is precisely because sexual offence allegations are so serious that we should be wary of a "judgment first, trial later" approach.
Or am I alone in worrying about this?
No. He's a right to pre-charge anonymity. Must be super easy for any colleagues to figure it out by elimination (I'm sure word has got around). That isn't anonymity to my eyes.
Just reading the SG's terms of references for the Covid inquiry. No explicit mention of economic harm, though might be included under 2b. I reckon they'll get ignored under 6c though.
My suspicion is that the devolved administrations, absolved of any responsibility for the economy, will conclude that their longer and tighter restrictions were worth it.
I do not wish to speculate about the MP being investigated for alleged sexual offences.
But am I the only one a touch troubled by the order to stay away from Parliament during the investigation?
If there is a concern about interference with witnesses or evidence, that is one thing. But in the absence of that, is this really acceptable? First, it risks identifying the person or putting others under unfair suspicion. Second, why should someone who has not even been charged be prevented from doing a key part of their job? A person is innocent until proven guilty. Keeping someone away even when not charged is implying that they are somehow in the wrong and when they do come back, assuming no charge, that will hang round them.
I realise there are other considerations. But lots of people remain free while investigations carry on and we do not expect them to stop working and be shunned by society.
I do worry that we are in danger of denuding the very precious idea of "innocence until proven guilty" of any real meaning and creating a whole new set of unfairnesses. It is precisely because sexual offence allegations are so serious that we should be wary of a "judgment first, trial later" approach.
Or am I alone in worrying about this?
You're not alone. After a 2 year investigation the police should have been ready to charge on arrest and interview under caution. I'm surprised SKS joined calls to 'name'. He's a lawyer. He should know better.
I would gently suggest your posts are hardly conducive to a less confrontational society
I try not to criticise other posters, especially your mild-mannered self, and urge the same policy on you. Almost none of us know each other personally and we could all be saints, axe murderers or rival incarnations of GPT-4 software. I think that the sharp criticisms sometimes adopted by posters as varied as Heathener and Josiah Jessop are in some ways less of a wind-up than a steady flow of little digs at the other side of an argument.
I largely agree with you Nick but ultimately when we cast out eye around the world we really do not live in the country some want to paint us as
Yes we have many problems, and an unprecedented economic and war crisis but we have a lot to be grateful for and to be proud of
Tldr; I'm all right, Jack.
Not fair comment. You can take a rounded view of the situation. For some times are incredibly tough right now. But that does not chime with some of the characterisations of the country that heathener has used. I think one was that there are 100 other countries better to live in than the UK? Waiting for the list.
I do not wish to speculate about the MP being investigated for alleged sexual offences.
But am I the only one a touch troubled by the order to stay away from Parliament during the investigation?
If there is a concern about interference with witnesses or evidence, that is one thing. But in the absence of that, is this really acceptable? First, it risks identifying the person or putting others under unfair suspicion. Second, why should someone who has not even been charged be prevented from doing a key part of their job? A person is innocent until proven guilty. Keeping someone away even when not charged is implying that they are somehow in the wrong and when they do come back, assuming no charge, that will hang round them.
I realise there are other considerations. But lots of people remain free while investigations carry on and we do not expect them to stop working and be shunned by society.
I do worry that we are in danger of denuding the very precious idea of "innocence until proven guilty" of any real meaning and creating a whole new set of unfairnesses. It is precisely because sexual offence allegations are so serious that we should be wary of a "judgment first, trial later" approach.
Or am I alone in worrying about this?
You are not alone - I find it very troubling indeed. Until charged everything should be done to avoid jigsaw identification. And he has a job to do to represent his constituents. Does he get to vote? Take part in committees? I can understand that there might be an issue if the person accusing him is also at parliament, but this is not the way to handle it.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Anybody who cares to find out knows who the fucker is anyway so it makes no difference.
I would gently suggest your posts are hardly conducive to a less confrontational society
That has absolutely nothing to do with my post
I would suggest it has a great deal to do with the constant theme of your posts
Big G lay off. I post left-of-centre and sometimes alternative views. You don't have to agree with them but of course they are going to 'seem' abrasive to someone of a right wing persuasion.
Is this a new even more alarming trend? That the Conservatives are getting so rattled that they now want to clamp down on free speech? On all views contrary to their increasingly Nasty Party? Certainly that would seem to be Priti Patel's wish.
I don't agree with everything you say but I do think you get unwarranted stick on here. VPNgate, for example. It has more than a whiff of misogyny in my opinion.
I salute your indefatigability!
To be fair, she also gives out unwarranted stick. I see little behaviour towards her that she does not give out herself.
About three months ago I realised that the only way for a female to exist on here, in my opinion, is to fight.
I think it's really sad but this is a mostly male and often aggressive bear pit of a place.
You might ask, why do I bother? Well it's because politics really interests me and I like betting on it, and offering betting tips on it.
I wish I could be a lot more gentle, which is what I'm like in real life, but I would be mowed down on here I'm afraid.
No need to reply to this please. It's a point of view. You may not agree with it but it won't change (in this instance) how I feel.
It really is not necessary to fight to survive on here. I have been here for quite some time and have not felt it necessary to get into personal fights with others. And, frankly, personal disputes are to my mind exceedingly tedious - along with most sport, FI and the culinary uses of pineapple in Italian cuisine. But it is very easy to scroll past these outpourings.
Of course you have your point of view and feelings. But as one of the relatively few women on here I really don't think you would be mowed down.
Meanwhile, Boris and NutNut don’t look themselves on the Metro 🫣
Kenneth Branagh is astonishing. If you didn't tell me that wasn't Boris I'd never have guessed it wasn't.
Kenneth is indeed astonishing. A brilliant and versatile actor and his facial expression here is ace. However, I think it fair to point out that most of this resemblance has less to do with Kenneth Branagh and more to do with the makeup department.
I suppose it's very Boris though to claim credit for something he didn't do.
It's not just his facial expression. It's his posture, his voice, his frame, his walk - he is a superb character actor.
And it's not just for Boris that he's done this. He's done it in multiple roles - like Shackleton, Tim Collins in 10 days to war, and Hamlet. If you see KB on the cast list always go and see it.
The only one for which it didn't work was Poirot, which is weird because he's a fictional character, but he disappeared up his own obsession and gave him a ludicrous moustache.
With Poirot possibly an issue was the sheer definitive nature of David Suchets performance, leading to too much of a reinterpretation. Must not be Suchet.
There is no point for anyone on earth to ever try playing Poirot again.
Suchet totally mastered it. He was and is Poirot.
I love the Suchet Poirot, but the first Branagh Poirot was decent.
The second, on the other hand, was turgid.
I made the mistake of rewatching the 1978 Ustinov DOTN before I saw Branagh’s one - apart from the contrived “story of the moustache” Branagh committed a fairly fundamental dramatic flaw of stripping any comedy from it - who in their right mind uses French & Saunders and gives them NO comedy. Turgid, tedious twaddle.
I would gently suggest your posts are hardly conducive to a less confrontational society
That has absolutely nothing to do with my post
I would suggest it has a great deal to do with the constant theme of your posts
Big G lay off. I post left-of-centre and sometimes alternative views. You don't have to agree with them but of course they are going to 'seem' abrasive to someone of a right wing persuasion.
Is this a new even more alarming trend? That the Conservatives are getting so rattled that they now want to clamp down on free speech? On all views contrary to their increasingly Nasty Party? Certainly that would seem to be Priti Patel's wish.
I don't agree with everything you say but I do think you get unwarranted stick on here. VPNgate, for example. It has more than a whiff of misogyny in my opinion.
I salute your indefatigability!
To be fair, she also gives out unwarranted stick. I see little behaviour towards her that she does not give out herself.
About three months ago I realised that the only way for a female to exist on here, in my opinion, is to fight.
I think it's really sad but this is a mostly male and often aggressive bear pit of a place.
You might ask, why do I bother? Well it's because politics really interests me and I like betting on it, and offering betting tips on it.
I wish I could be a lot more gentle, which is what I'm like in real life, but I would be mowed down on here I'm afraid.
No need to reply to this please. It's a point of view. You may not agree with it but it won't change (in this instance) how I feel.
I had absolutely no idea you were a woman - I'm sure you don't want to be treated differently because of it. G is one of the politer posters on here and has been for about 10 years so if his cage is rattled it is surprising. Generally if you speak with nuance on here it is ignored so people tend to make extreme statements which provoke the debate.
JJ, who is mostly it seems to me a decent person, claimed yesterday that homophobia and racism were far reduced yesterday. He cited examples of footballers and others harassed in the past for being gay and that now the situation is much better.
Well, yesterday's leading trend on twitter in the whole world was the hashtag 'we are all idrissa' in support of 's PSGSenegalese star Idrissa Gueye who refused to wear a shirt carrying the rainbow symbol.
Homosexuality is illegal in Senegal and in Qatar, who own PSG.
Two compatriots of Gueye who play in Britain tweeted in support of him.
I am afraid I see little or nothing in this country at the moment to damp down the culture wars and hatred being, I believe, deliberately now fanned into flame by Boris Johnson's appeal to a certain kind of red wall demographic.
I would gently suggest your posts are hardly conducive to a less confrontational society
I try not to criticise other posters, especially your mild-mannered self, and urge the same policy on you. Almost none of us know each other personally and we could all be saints, axe murderers or rival incarnations of GPT-4 software. I think that the sharp criticisms sometimes adopted by posters as varied as Heathener and Josiah Jessop are in some ways less of a wind-up than a steady flow of little digs at the other side of an argument.
If we are all axe murderers there would be carnage.
I think I have told this story before but I asked one of our workman how stuff was progressing. I was carrying an axe at the time. He commented it was going well but added he always says that to customers carrying an axe.
A question for all you Brits in Britain. How many of you are participating in Platinum Jubilee events? And how many of you are going to avoid them or even go abroad on holiday? I am curious to know!
I've posted something along these lines before. In my neck of the woods - post-industrial West Yorks, the flat eastern bit of the county - there is a noticeable lack of interest in these big national, often Royalty-related, events. No-one seems to give a damn. No street parties, no big events. Nothing.
I do remember ever so slightly having a party at my nursery for Charles and Di's wedding. And I'm told I was conceived after my parents had been at a Silver Jubilee bash in '77. So perhaps it wasn't always thus.
It's not that there's a burning republicanism here, and people certainly have great affection for Lizzy, I think it's just a general sense that all the Royal pageantry stuff, that traditional view of Britain, England, it represents is just so remote from people's lives and experience here.
I imagine that the tiny villages in rural, southern England, the Home Counties and the like, will pay more attention. The world that I think of as a Radio 4 land, where I imagine people play cricket and keep horses and read the Telegraph and work in the city and publishing and are architects and senior civil servants (no doubt a stereotype in itself) just feels a million miles away from how people live in Knottingley, Featherstone, Pontefract and Castleford.
I suspect it'll be more keenly observed in the western, hillier, more rural parts of W. Yorks.
I thought the 75th Anniversary of VE Day would be more celebrated in these parts but that was a damp squib too. But we were just emerging from lockdown 1 and everyone was still very jittery.
I would gently suggest your posts are hardly conducive to a less confrontational society
That has absolutely nothing to do with my post
I would suggest it has a great deal to do with the constant theme of your posts
Big G lay off. I post left-of-centre and sometimes alternative views. You don't have to agree with them but of course they are going to 'seem' abrasive to someone of a right wing persuasion.
Is this a new even more alarming trend? That the Conservatives are getting so rattled that they now want to clamp down on free speech? On all views contrary to their increasingly Nasty Party? Certainly that would seem to be Priti Patel's wish.
I don't agree with everything you say but I do think you get unwarranted stick on here. VPNgate, for example. It has more than a whiff of misogyny in my opinion.
I salute your indefatigability!
To be fair, she also gives out unwarranted stick. I see little behaviour towards her that she does not give out herself.
About three months ago I realised that the only way for a female to exist on here, in my opinion, is to fight.
I think it's really sad but this is a mostly male and often aggressive bear pit of a place.
You might ask, why do I bother? Well it's because politics really interests me and I like betting on it, and offering betting tips on it.
I wish I could be a lot more gentle, which is what I'm like in real life, but I would be mowed down on here I'm afraid.
No need to reply to this please. It's a point of view. You may not agree with it but it won't change (in this instance) how I feel.
As for 'gentle in real life' : didn't you say you'd whack someone with your stick if they didn't wear a mask in a supermarket or somesuch?
Noooooooooooooo I did not JJ
I said I waft them away with my stick.
I've never hit anyone with it and nor would I. But it's reasonably long and has a titanium tip. I find people tend to keep their distance
JJ, who is mostly it seems to me a decent person, claimed yesterday that homophobia and racism were far reduced yesterday. He cited examples of footballers and others harassed in the past for being gay and that now the situation is much better.
Well, yesterday's leading trend on twitter in the whole world was the hashtag 'we are all idrissa' in support of 's PSGSenegalese star Idrissa Gueye who refused to wear a shirt carrying the rainbow symbol.
Homosexuality is illegal in Senegal and in Qatar, who own PSG.
Two compatriots of Gueye who play in Britain tweeted in support of him.
I am afraid I see little or nothing in this country at the moment to damp down the culture wars and hatred being, I believe, deliberately now fanned into flame by Boris Johnson's appeal to a certain kind of red wall demographic.
It's godawful.
Did you miss the Blackpool footballer coming out to widespread acclaim in this country? Its sad its taken this long to happen but this country is far more tolerant than it used to be and there are many countries round the world, and sadly many other religions that take a very different standpoint. Take same sex marriage. its not that long ago that it was not legal in the UK. It is now.
You seem determined to always see the worst. Maybe you need some gentle exercise and time to pamper yourself.
I do not wish to speculate about the MP being investigated for alleged sexual offences.
But am I the only one a touch troubled by the order to stay away from Parliament during the investigation?
If there is a concern about interference with witnesses or evidence, that is one thing. But in the absence of that, is this really acceptable? First, it risks identifying the person or putting others under unfair suspicion. Second, why should someone who has not even been charged be prevented from doing a key part of their job? A person is innocent until proven guilty. Keeping someone away even when not charged is implying that they are somehow in the wrong and when they do come back, assuming no charge, that will hang round them.
I realise there are other considerations. But lots of people remain free while investigations carry on and we do not expect them to stop working and be shunned by society.
I do worry that we are in danger of denuding the very precious idea of "innocence until proven guilty" of any real meaning and creating a whole new set of unfairnesses. It is precisely because sexual offence allegations are so serious that we should be wary of a "judgment first, trial later" approach.
Or am I alone in worrying about this?
Sadly, Twitter has had no problem identifying the MP concerned, so they are already known to anyone who wants to know.
Innocent until proven guilty seems a very quaint concept in the age of social media.
JJ, who is mostly it seems to me a decent person, claimed yesterday that homophobia and racism were far reduced yesterday. He cited examples of footballers and others harassed in the past for being gay and that now the situation is much better.
Well, yesterday's leading trend on twitter in the whole world was the hashtag 'we are all idrissa' in support of 's PSGSenegalese star Idrissa Gueye who refused to wear a shirt carrying the rainbow symbol.
Homosexuality is illegal in Senegal and in Qatar, who own PSG.
Two compatriots of Gueye who play in Britain tweeted in support of him.
I am afraid I see little or nothing in this country at the moment to damp down the culture wars and hatred being, I believe, deliberately now fanned into flame by Boris Johnson's appeal to a certain kind of red wall demographic.
It's godawful.
Set against 2 random footballers are the hundreds of supportive ones, the thousands of supportive fans and the undeniable movement of society towards inclusiveness.
Where you see a right wing culture war, I see a left wing one designed to divide.
I do not wish to speculate about the MP being investigated for alleged sexual offences.
But am I the only one a touch troubled by the order to stay away from Parliament during the investigation?
If there is a concern about interference with witnesses or evidence, that is one thing. But in the absence of that, is this really acceptable? First, it risks identifying the person or putting others under unfair suspicion. Second, why should someone who has not even been charged be prevented from doing a key part of their job? A person is innocent until proven guilty. Keeping someone away even when not charged is implying that they are somehow in the wrong and when they do come back, assuming no charge, that will hang round them.
I realise there are other considerations. But lots of people remain free while investigations carry on and we do not expect them to stop working and be shunned by society.
I do worry that we are in danger of denuding the very precious idea of "innocence until proven guilty" of any real meaning and creating a whole new set of unfairnesses. It is precisely because sexual offence allegations are so serious that we should be wary of a "judgment first, trial later" approach.
Or am I alone in worrying about this?
Interesting point, and not one I had considered. I was going to say that I agree, for most jobs, but since an MP will come into contact with, and potentially have power over, vulnerable people it makes sense for them to be stopped from doing so during the investigation. I believe such arrangements are in place for doctors, police officers and teachers etc.
However, on further consideration, I'm not sure the above applies if the accused has only been suspended from Parliament and not from other work as an MP. Would be difficult to do all that and safeguard the anonymity of the accused.
I think politicians in general are at particular risk of the 'judge first' sentiment in your final paragraph. They're a generally unsympathetic bunch, through the eyes of public. Then on top of that there are partisans hoping to make political hay. Various left-wing subreddits I seem to be being shown atm (generally ones attempting to live up to every Conservative stereotype of Labour activists) seem to be practically wetting themselves with glee.
I suppose I don't have the answer to your question, other than it would be nice if everyone left it alone and allowed the police to do their job.
A question for all you Brits in Britain. How many of you are participating in Platinum Jubilee events? And how many of you are going to avoid them or even go abroad on holiday? I am curious to know!
I've posted something along these lines before. In my neck of the woods - post-industrial West Yorks, the flat eastern bit of the county - there is a noticeable lack of interest in these big national, often Royalty-related, events. No-one seems to give a damn. No street parties, no big events. Nothing.
I do remember ever so slightly having a party at my nursery for Charles and Di's wedding. And I'm told I was conceived after my parents had been at a Silver Jubilee bash in '77. So perhaps it wasn't always thus.
It's not that there's a burning republicanism here, and people certainly have great affection for Lizzy, I think it's just a general sense that all the Royal pageantry stuff, that traditional view of Britain, England, it represents is just so remote from people's lives and experience here.
I imagine that the tiny villages in rural, southern England, the Home Counties and the like, will pay more attention. The world that I think of as a Radio 4 land, where I imagine people play cricket and keep horses and read the Telegraph and work in the city and publishing and are architects and senior civil servants (no doubt a stereotype in itself) just feels a million miles away from how people live in Knottingley, Featherstone, Pontefract and Castleford.
I suspect it'll be more keenly observed in the western, hillier, more rural parts of W. Yorks.
I thought the 75th Anniversary of VE Day would be more celebrated in these parts but that was a damp squib too. But we were just emerging from lockdown 1 and everyone was still very jittery.
Good post. Sums up my feelings. It all seems very far away from here.
A question for all you Brits in Britain. How many of you are participating in Platinum Jubilee events? And how many of you are going to avoid them or even go abroad on holiday? I am curious to know!
I've posted something along these lines before. In my neck of the woods - post-industrial West Yorks, the flat eastern bit of the county - there is a noticeable lack of interest in these big national, often Royalty-related, events. No-one seems to give a damn. No street parties, no big events. Nothing.
I do remember ever so slightly having a party at my nursery for Charles and Di's wedding. And I'm told I was conceived after my parents had been at a Silver Jubilee bash in '77. So perhaps it wasn't always thus.
It's not that there's a burning republicanism here, and people certainly have great affection for Lizzy, I think it's just a general sense that all the Royal pageantry stuff, that traditional view of Britain, England, it represents is just so remote from people's lives and experience here.
I imagine that the tiny villages in rural, southern England, the Home Counties and the like, will pay more attention. The world that I think of as a Radio 4 land, where I imagine people play cricket and keep horses and read the Telegraph and work in the city and publishing and are architects and senior civil servants (no doubt a stereotype in itself) just feels a million miles away from how people live in Knottingley, Featherstone, Pontefract and Castleford.
I suspect it'll be more keenly observed in the western, hillier, more rural parts of W. Yorks.
I thought the 75th Anniversary of VE Day would be more celebrated in these parts but that was a damp squib too. But we were just emerging from lockdown 1 and everyone was still very jittery.
I think you'll be surprised. Bunting and decoration starting to go up and once it starts more will follow. I'm in the lovely Wiltshire cricket playing, horse riding lands, but we do have a lot going on round our way. Plus TV will be wall to wall (BBC at least) so it will SEEM like a big event...
I would gently suggest your posts are hardly conducive to a less confrontational society
That has absolutely nothing to do with my post
I would suggest it has a great deal to do with the constant theme of your posts
Big G lay off. I post left-of-centre and sometimes alternative views. You don't have to agree with them but of course they are going to 'seem' abrasive to someone of a right wing persuasion.
Is this a new even more alarming trend? That the Conservatives are getting so rattled that they now want to clamp down on free speech? On all views contrary to their increasingly Nasty Party? Certainly that would seem to be Priti Patel's wish.
I don't agree with everything you say but I do think you get unwarranted stick on here. VPNgate, for example. It has more than a whiff of misogyny in my opinion.
I salute your indefatigability!
To be fair, she also gives out unwarranted stick. I see little behaviour towards her that she does not give out herself.
About three months ago I realised that the only way for a female to exist on here, in my opinion, is to fight.
I think it's really sad but this is a mostly male and often aggressive bear pit of a place.
You might ask, why do I bother? Well it's because politics really interests me and I like betting on it, and offering betting tips on it.
I wish I could be a lot more gentle, which is what I'm like in real life, but I would be mowed down on here I'm afraid.
No need to reply to this please. It's a point of view. You may not agree with it but it won't change (in this instance) how I feel.
There have been certain times in this country when it has, clearly to my eye, headed downhill.
One was in the run up to Brexit and not for the reasons you might think. I saw ghost towns and people disenfranchised. I felt the angst and listened to people who were far, far, removed from the metropolitan successes that the EU brought. I had a vigorous debate with a local Labour leader about it and told him that the country was going to vote to Leave the EU unless Labour got a grip on the problem of the working class British voter who felt left out. He, and they, didn't listen. The rest is history. But I made a lot of money betting the right way. Sigh.
Another was during 1992-7 but it was far less serious than now. With hindsight it was mostly froth and tittle tattle, serious enough in its own way, but the economy was doing really well and Labour inherited a country in rude fiscal health. It just needed a social reset, which TB provided.
And finally the Winter of Discontent which I can just remember and which was AWFUL. Rather like now. People then tried to claim it wasn't as bad as all that: even Sunny Jim tried that line on return from his ill-fated Caribbean jaunt.
If things aren't bad for you then be glad for yourself. But, yep, this country is in the pits right now. Sorry but it's true.
A question for all you Brits in Britain. How many of you are participating in Platinum Jubilee events? And how many of you are going to avoid them or even go abroad on holiday? I am curious to know!
I've posted something along these lines before. In my neck of the woods - post-industrial West Yorks, the flat eastern bit of the county - there is a noticeable lack of interest in these big national, often Royalty-related, events. No-one seems to give a damn. No street parties, no big events. Nothing.
I do remember ever so slightly having a party at my nursery for Charles and Di's wedding. And I'm told I was conceived after my parents had been at a Silver Jubilee bash in '77. So perhaps it wasn't always thus.
It's not that there's a burning republicanism here, and people certainly have great affection for Lizzy, I think it's just a general sense that all the Royal pageantry stuff, that traditional view of Britain, England, it represents is just so remote from people's lives and experience here.
I imagine that the tiny villages in rural, southern England, the Home Counties and the like, will pay more attention. The world that I think of as a Radio 4 land, where I imagine people play cricket and keep horses and read the Telegraph and work in the city and publishing and are architects and senior civil servants (no doubt a stereotype in itself) just feels a million miles away from how people live in Knottingley, Featherstone, Pontefract and Castleford.
I suspect it'll be more keenly observed in the western, hillier, more rural parts of W. Yorks.
I thought the 75th Anniversary of VE Day would be more celebrated in these parts but that was a damp squib too. But we were just emerging from lockdown 1 and everyone was still very jittery.
I thought there was quite a thing about playing cricket in Yorkshire. Even the industrial bits.
I would gently suggest your posts are hardly conducive to a less confrontational society
That has absolutely nothing to do with my post
I would suggest it has a great deal to do with the constant theme of your posts
Big G lay off. I post left-of-centre and sometimes alternative views. You don't have to agree with them but of course they are going to 'seem' abrasive to someone of a right wing persuasion.
Is this a new even more alarming trend? That the Conservatives are getting so rattled that they now want to clamp down on free speech? On all views contrary to their increasingly Nasty Party? Certainly that would seem to be Priti Patel's wish.
I don't agree with everything you say but I do think you get unwarranted stick on here. VPNgate, for example. It has more than a whiff of misogyny in my opinion.
I salute your indefatigability!
To be fair, she also gives out unwarranted stick. I see little behaviour towards her that she does not give out herself.
About three months ago I realised that the only way for a female to exist on here, in my opinion, is to fight.
I think it's really sad but this is a mostly male and often aggressive bear pit of a place.
You might ask, why do I bother? Well it's because politics really interests me and I like betting on it, and offering betting tips on it.
I wish I could be a lot more gentle, which is what I'm like in real life, but I would be mowed down on here I'm afraid.
No need to reply to this please. It's a point of view. You may not agree with it but it won't change (in this instance) how I feel.
It really is not necessary to fight to survive on here. I have been here for quite some time and have not felt it necessary to get into personal fights with others. And, frankly, personal disputes are to my mind exceedingly tedious - along with most sport, FI and the culinary uses of pineapple in Italian cuisine. But it is very easy to scroll past these outpourings.
Of course you have your point of view and feelings. But as one of the relatively few women on here I really don't think you would be mowed down.
From what I've seen, the views and opinions of our female contributors have always been disporportionately welcomed simply because there are so few of you. But putting oneself forward "as a" woman doesn't excuse racism, sexism, general insults and diverting the debate.
I do not wish to speculate about the MP being investigated for alleged sexual offences.
But am I the only one a touch troubled by the order to stay away from Parliament during the investigation?
If there is a concern about interference with witnesses or evidence, that is one thing. But in the absence of that, is this really acceptable? First, it risks identifying the person or putting others under unfair suspicion. Second, why should someone who has not even been charged be prevented from doing a key part of their job? A person is innocent until proven guilty. Keeping someone away even when not charged is implying that they are somehow in the wrong and when they do come back, assuming no charge, that will hang round them.
I realise there are other considerations. But lots of people remain free while investigations carry on and we do not expect them to stop working and be shunned by society.
I do worry that we are in danger of denuding the very precious idea of "innocence until proven guilty" of any real meaning and creating a whole new set of unfairnesses. It is precisely because sexual offence allegations are so serious that we should be wary of a "judgment first, trial later" approach.
Or am I alone in worrying about this?
You are not alone - I find it very troubling indeed. Until charged everything should be done to avoid jigsaw identification. And he has a job to do to represent his constituents. Does he get to vote? Take part in committees? I can understand that there might be an issue if the person accusing him is also at parliament, but this is not the way to handle it.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Anybody who cares to find out knows who the fucker is anyway so it makes no difference.
That's not the issue which concerns me. But the demand that the MP should be prevented from doing a key part of their job despite not being charged.
Let me give another example. Starmer has said that he will resign his position if given an FPN. He is currently under police investigation. Should he be required to stop doing part of his job?
Obvious retort: Covid rules are less serious than sex offences. Sure - but at this stage, all we have are allegations and hey presto an MP is effectively hobbled from doing their job.
JJ, who is mostly it seems to me a decent person, claimed yesterday that homophobia and racism were far reduced yesterday. He cited examples of footballers and others harassed in the past for being gay and that now the situation is much better.
Well, yesterday's leading trend on twitter in the whole world was the hashtag 'we are all idrissa' in support of 's PSGSenegalese star Idrissa Gueye who refused to wear a shirt carrying the rainbow symbol.
Homosexuality is illegal in Senegal and in Qatar, who own PSG.
Two compatriots of Gueye who play in Britain tweeted in support of him.
I am afraid I see little or nothing in this country at the moment to damp down the culture wars and hatred being, I believe, deliberately now fanned into flame by Boris Johnson's appeal to a certain kind of red wall demographic.
It's godawful.
So your bewailing of homophobia in Britain is based upon the tweeting of two Senegalese footballers ?
Meanwhile, Boris and NutNut don’t look themselves on the Metro 🫣
Kenneth Branagh is astonishing. If you didn't tell me that wasn't Boris I'd never have guessed it wasn't.
Kenneth is indeed astonishing. A brilliant and versatile actor and his facial expression here is ace. However, I think it fair to point out that most of this resemblance has less to do with Kenneth Branagh and more to do with the makeup department.
I suppose it's very Boris though to claim credit for something he didn't do.
It's not just his facial expression. It's his posture, his voice, his frame, his walk - he is a superb character actor.
And it's not just for Boris that he's done this. He's done it in multiple roles - like Shackleton, Tim Collins in 10 days to war, and Hamlet. If you see KB on the cast list always go and see it.
The only one for which it didn't work was Poirot, which is weird because he's a fictional character, but he disappeared up his own obsession and gave him a ludicrous moustache.
With Poirot possibly an issue was the sheer definitive nature of David Suchets performance, leading to too much of a reinterpretation. Must not be Suchet.
There is no point for anyone on earth to ever try playing Poirot again.
Suchet totally mastered it. He was and is Poirot.
I love the Suchet Poirot, but the first Branagh Poirot was decent.
The second, on the other hand, was turgid.
I made the mistake of rewatching the 1978 Ustinov DOTN before I saw Branagh’s one - apart from the contrived “story of the moustache” Branagh committed a fairly fundamental dramatic flaw of stripping any comedy from it - who in their right mind uses French & Saunders and gives them NO comedy. Turgid, tedious twaddle.
I may be in a smallish minority, possibly of one, but I liked Malkovich's Poirot in the ABC Murders. Bleakly atmospheric, it stuck in the memory. I find the feel of things stays with me more than plot twists and stupid moustaches nowadays.
JJ, who is mostly it seems to me a decent person, claimed yesterday that homophobia and racism were far reduced yesterday. He cited examples of footballers and others harassed in the past for being gay and that now the situation is much better.
Well, yesterday's leading trend on twitter in the whole world was the hashtag 'we are all idrissa' in support of 's PSGSenegalese star Idrissa Gueye who refused to wear a shirt carrying the rainbow symbol.
Homosexuality is illegal in Senegal and in Qatar, who own PSG.
Two compatriots of Gueye who play in Britain tweeted in support of him.
I am afraid I see little or nothing in this country at the moment to damp down the culture wars and hatred being, I believe, deliberately now fanned into flame by Boris Johnson's appeal to a certain kind of red wall demographic.
It's godawful.
Set against 2 random footballers are the hundreds of supportive ones, the thousands of supportive fans and the undeniable movement of society towards inclusiveness.
Where you see a right wing culture war, I see a left wing one designed to divide.
And s/he complains when I say that s/he is a troll - that comment is the perfect example.
JJ, who is mostly it seems to me a decent person, claimed yesterday that homophobia and racism were far reduced yesterday. He cited examples of footballers and others harassed in the past for being gay and that now the situation is much better.
Well, yesterday's leading trend on twitter in the whole world was the hashtag 'we are all idrissa' in support of 's PSGSenegalese star Idrissa Gueye who refused to wear a shirt carrying the rainbow symbol.
Homosexuality is illegal in Senegal and in Qatar, who own PSG.
Two compatriots of Gueye who play in Britain tweeted in support of him.
I am afraid I see little or nothing in this country at the moment to damp down the culture wars and hatred being, I believe, deliberately now fanned into flame by Boris Johnson's appeal to a certain kind of red wall demographic.
It's godawful.
So your bewailing of homophobia in Britain is based upon the tweeting of two Senegalese footballers ?
FFS.
This is the kind of stupid response that is, presumably, intended to wind me up.
There have been certain times in this country when it has, clearly to my eye, headed downhill.
One was in the run up to Brexit and not for the reasons you might think. I saw ghost towns and people disenfranchised. I felt the angst and listened to people who were far, far, removed from the metropolitan successes that the EU brought. I had a vigorous debate with a local Labour leader about it and told him that the country was going to vote to Leave the EU unless Labour got a grip on the problem of the working class British voter who felt left out. He, and they, didn't listen. The rest is history. But I made a lot of money betting the right way. Sigh.
Another was during 1992-7 but it was far less serious than now. With hindsight it was mostly froth and tittle tattle, serious enough in its own way, but the economy was doing really well and Labour inherited a country in rude fiscal health. It just needed a social reset, which TB provided.
And finally the Winter of Discontent which I can just remember and which was AWFUL. Rather like now. People then tried to claim it wasn't as bad as all that: even Sunny Jim tried that line on return from his ill-fated Caribbean jaunt.
If things aren't bad for you then be glad for yourself. But, yep, this country is in the pits right now. Sorry but it's true.
A fortune cookie could be a seer right now, the problems are not exactly hidden from view
I would gently suggest your posts are hardly conducive to a less confrontational society
That has absolutely nothing to do with my post
I would suggest it has a great deal to do with the constant theme of your posts
Big G lay off. I post left-of-centre and sometimes alternative views. You don't have to agree with them but of course they are going to 'seem' abrasive to someone of a right wing persuasion.
Is this a new even more alarming trend? That the Conservatives are getting so rattled that they now want to clamp down on free speech? On all views contrary to their increasingly Nasty Party? Certainly that would seem to be Priti Patel's wish.
I don't agree with everything you say but I do think you get unwarranted stick on here. VPNgate, for example. It has more than a whiff of misogyny in my opinion.
I salute your indefatigability!
To be fair, she also gives out unwarranted stick. I see little behaviour towards her that she does not give out herself.
About three months ago I realised that the only way for a female to exist on here, in my opinion, is to fight.
I think it's really sad but this is a mostly male and often aggressive bear pit of a place.
You might ask, why do I bother? Well it's because politics really interests me and I like betting on it, and offering betting tips on it.
I wish I could be a lot more gentle, which is what I'm like in real life, but I would be mowed down on here I'm afraid.
No need to reply to this please. It's a point of view. You may not agree with it but it won't change (in this instance) how I feel.
I do not wish to speculate about the MP being investigated for alleged sexual offences.
But am I the only one a touch troubled by the order to stay away from Parliament during the investigation?
If there is a concern about interference with witnesses or evidence, that is one thing. But in the absence of that, is this really acceptable? First, it risks identifying the person or putting others under unfair suspicion. Second, why should someone who has not even been charged be prevented from doing a key part of their job? A person is innocent until proven guilty. Keeping someone away even when not charged is implying that they are somehow in the wrong and when they do come back, assuming no charge, that will hang round them.
I realise there are other considerations. But lots of people remain free while investigations carry on and we do not expect them to stop working and be shunned by society.
I do worry that we are in danger of denuding the very precious idea of "innocence until proven guilty" of any real meaning and creating a whole new set of unfairnesses. It is precisely because sexual offence allegations are so serious that we should be wary of a "judgment first, trial later" approach.
Or am I alone in worrying about this?
You are not alone - I find it very troubling indeed. Until charged everything should be done to avoid jigsaw identification. And he has a job to do to represent his constituents. Does he get to vote? Take part in committees? I can understand that there might be an issue if the person accusing him is also at parliament, but this is not the way to handle it.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Innocent until proven guilty is true, but glib. Taken to its logical extreme, nobody would ever be remanded in custody until their trial has concluded. Not sure the GBP would be happy about that - unconvicted but suspected terrorist bombers released on bail?
In the case of the MP, however, the issue is that the police/CPS should get on with it and decide whether to prosecute. If they do, then I think it's legitimate to exclude him from the HoC.
Meanwhile, Boris and NutNut don’t look themselves on the Metro 🫣
Kenneth Branagh is astonishing. If you didn't tell me that wasn't Boris I'd never have guessed it wasn't.
Kenneth is indeed astonishing. A brilliant and versatile actor and his facial expression here is ace. However, I think it fair to point out that most of this resemblance has less to do with Kenneth Branagh and more to do with the makeup department.
I suppose it's very Boris though to claim credit for something he didn't do.
It's not just his facial expression. It's his posture, his voice, his frame, his walk - he is a superb character actor.
And it's not just for Boris that he's done this. He's done it in multiple roles - like Shackleton, Tim Collins in 10 days to war, and Hamlet. If you see KB on the cast list always go and see it.
The only one for which it didn't work was Poirot, which is weird because he's a fictional character, but he disappeared up his own obsession and gave him a ludicrous moustache.
With Poirot possibly an issue was the sheer definitive nature of David Suchets performance, leading to too much of a reinterpretation. Must not be Suchet.
There is no point for anyone on earth to ever try playing Poirot again.
Suchet totally mastered it. He was and is Poirot.
I love the Suchet Poirot, but the first Branagh Poirot was decent.
The second, on the other hand, was turgid.
I made the mistake of rewatching the 1978 Ustinov DOTN before I saw Branagh’s one - apart from the contrived “story of the moustache” Branagh committed a fairly fundamental dramatic flaw of stripping any comedy from it - who in their right mind uses French & Saunders and gives them NO comedy. Turgid, tedious twaddle.
I may be in a smallish minority, possibly of one, but I liked Malkovich's Poirot in the ABC Murders. Bleakly atmospheric, it stuck in the memory. I find the feel of things stays with me more than plot twists and stupid moustaches nowadays.
You deserve congratulations for getting past the Pascal Sauvage comedy foreign accent.
George Parker @GeorgeWParker · 1h New: “The next Labour prime minister won’t be Starmer,” says one Tory cabinet minister. “It will be Streeting.” @FTMag interview/profile of @wesstreeting in Israel: cancer, coming out, Christianity, Christine Keeler..with @PickardJE
I do not wish to speculate about the MP being investigated for alleged sexual offences.
But am I the only one a touch troubled by the order to stay away from Parliament during the investigation?
If there is a concern about interference with witnesses or evidence, that is one thing. But in the absence of that, is this really acceptable? First, it risks identifying the person or putting others under unfair suspicion. Second, why should someone who has not even been charged be prevented from doing a key part of their job? A person is innocent until proven guilty. Keeping someone away even when not charged is implying that they are somehow in the wrong and when they do come back, assuming no charge, that will hang round them.
I realise there are other considerations. But lots of people remain free while investigations carry on and we do not expect them to stop working and be shunned by society.
I do worry that we are in danger of denuding the very precious idea of "innocence until proven guilty" of any real meaning and creating a whole new set of unfairnesses. It is precisely because sexual offence allegations are so serious that we should be wary of a "judgment first, trial later" approach.
Or am I alone in worrying about this?
You are not alone - I find it very troubling indeed. Until charged everything should be done to avoid jigsaw identification. And he has a job to do to represent his constituents. Does he get to vote? Take part in committees? I can understand that there might be an issue if the person accusing him is also at parliament, but this is not the way to handle it.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Anybody who cares to find out knows who the fucker is anyway so it makes no difference.
That's not the issue which concerns me. But the demand that the MP should be prevented from doing a key part of their job despite not being charged.
Let me give another example. Starmer has said that he will resign his position if given an FPN. He is currently under police investigation. Should he be required to stop doing part of his job?
Obvious retort: Covid rules are less serious than sex offences. Sure - but at this stage, all we have are allegations and hey presto an MP is effectively hobbled from doing their job.
Yep. If the police have a case they must charge without delay.
I would gently suggest your posts are hardly conducive to a less confrontational society
That has absolutely nothing to do with my post
I would suggest it has a great deal to do with the constant theme of your posts
Big G lay off. I post left-of-centre and sometimes alternative views. You don't have to agree with them but of course they are going to 'seem' abrasive to someone of a right wing persuasion.
Is this a new even more alarming trend? That the Conservatives are getting so rattled that they now want to clamp down on free speech? On all views contrary to their increasingly Nasty Party? Certainly that would seem to be Priti Patel's wish.
I don't agree with everything you say but I do think you get unwarranted stick on here. VPNgate, for example. It has more than a whiff of misogyny in my opinion.
I salute your indefatigability!
To be fair, she also gives out unwarranted stick. I see little behaviour towards her that she does not give out herself.
About three months ago I realised that the only way for a female to exist on here, in my opinion, is to fight.
I think it's really sad but this is a mostly male and often aggressive bear pit of a place.
You might ask, why do I bother? Well it's because politics really interests me and I like betting on it, and offering betting tips on it.
I wish I could be a lot more gentle, which is what I'm like in real life, but I would be mowed down on here I'm afraid.
No need to reply to this please. It's a point of view. You may not agree with it but it won't change (in this instance) how I feel.
It really is not necessary to fight to survive on here. I have been here for quite some time and have not felt it necessary to get into personal fights with others. And, frankly, personal disputes are to my mind exceedingly tedious - along with most sport, FI and the culinary uses of pineapple in Italian cuisine. But it is very easy to scroll past these outpourings.
Of course you have your point of view and feelings. But as one of the relatively few women on here I really don't think you would be mowed down.
From what I've seen, the views and opinions of our female contributors have always been disporportionately welcomed simply because there are so few of you. But putting oneself forward "as a" woman doesn't excuse racism, sexism, general insults and diverting the debate.
@Cyclefree is one of the most interesting posters on this forum making a huge contribution and certainly has informed and helped my consideration of various issues greatly, not least this mornings
I would gently suggest your posts are hardly conducive to a less confrontational society
That has absolutely nothing to do with my post
I would suggest it has a great deal to do with the constant theme of your posts
Big G lay off. I post left-of-centre and sometimes alternative views. You don't have to agree with them but of course they are going to 'seem' abrasive to someone of a right wing persuasion.
Is this a new even more alarming trend? That the Conservatives are getting so rattled that they now want to clamp down on free speech? On all views contrary to their increasingly Nasty Party? Certainly that would seem to be Priti Patel's wish.
I don't agree with everything you say but I do think you get unwarranted stick on here. VPNgate, for example. It has more than a whiff of misogyny in my opinion.
I salute your indefatigability!
To be fair, she also gives out unwarranted stick. I see little behaviour towards her that she does not give out herself.
About three months ago I realised that the only way for a female to exist on here, in my opinion, is to fight.
I think it's really sad but this is a mostly male and often aggressive bear pit of a place.
You might ask, why do I bother? Well it's because politics really interests me and I like betting on it, and offering betting tips on it.
I wish I could be a lot more gentle, which is what I'm like in real life, but I would be mowed down on here I'm afraid.
No need to reply to this please. It's a point of view. You may not agree with it but it won't change (in this instance) how I feel.
It really is not necessary to fight to survive on here. I have been here for quite some time and have not felt it necessary to get into personal fights with others. And, frankly, personal disputes are to my mind exceedingly tedious - along with most sport, FI and the culinary uses of pineapple in Italian cuisine. But it is very easy to scroll past these outpourings.
Of course you have your point of view and feelings. But as one of the relatively few women on here I really don't think you would be mowed down.
From what I've seen, the views and opinions of our female contributors have always been disporportionately welcomed simply because there are so few of you. But putting oneself forward "as a" woman doesn't excuse racism, sexism, general insults and diverting the debate.
It was quite some time after I first started contributing that I revealed I was a woman. And I remember one other poster, who no longer posts, who said that this could not be right because I argued "like a man" which I thought revealing in all sorts of ways that poster may not have intended.
I would gently suggest your posts are hardly conducive to a less confrontational society
That has absolutely nothing to do with my post
I would suggest it has a great deal to do with the constant theme of your posts
Big G lay off. I post left-of-centre and sometimes alternative views. You don't have to agree with them but of course they are going to 'seem' abrasive to someone of a right wing persuasion.
Is this a new even more alarming trend? That the Conservatives are getting so rattled that they now want to clamp down on free speech? On all views contrary to their increasingly Nasty Party? Certainly that would seem to be Priti Patel's wish.
I don't agree with everything you say but I do think you get unwarranted stick on here. VPNgate, for example. It has more than a whiff of misogyny in my opinion.
I salute your indefatigability!
To be fair, she also gives out unwarranted stick. I see little behaviour towards her that she does not give out herself.
About three months ago I realised that the only way for a female to exist on here, in my opinion, is to fight.
I think it's really sad but this is a mostly male and often aggressive bear pit of a place.
You might ask, why do I bother? Well it's because politics really interests me and I like betting on it, and offering betting tips on it.
I wish I could be a lot more gentle, which is what I'm like in real life, but I would be mowed down on here I'm afraid.
No need to reply to this please. It's a point of view. You may not agree with it but it won't change (in this instance) how I feel.
It really is not necessary to fight to survive on here. I have been here for quite some time and have not felt it necessary to get into personal fights with others. And, frankly, personal disputes are to my mind exceedingly tedious - along with most sport, FI and the culinary uses of pineapple in Italian cuisine. But it is very easy to scroll past these outpourings.
Of course you have your point of view and feelings. But as one of the relatively few women on here I really don't think you would be mowed down.
Cyclefree thanks. I think the problem is that it's a combination of being female and left of centre, with occasionally alternative views which probably seem pretty whacky to the status quo but which are de rigeur to me and many of my friends.
Anyway, it's a day off so I'm going to do some gardening.
I do not wish to speculate about the MP being investigated for alleged sexual offences.
But am I the only one a touch troubled by the order to stay away from Parliament during the investigation?
If there is a concern about interference with witnesses or evidence, that is one thing. But in the absence of that, is this really acceptable? First, it risks identifying the person or putting others under unfair suspicion. Second, why should someone who has not even been charged be prevented from doing a key part of their job? A person is innocent until proven guilty. Keeping someone away even when not charged is implying that they are somehow in the wrong and when they do come back, assuming no charge, that will hang round them.
I realise there are other considerations. But lots of people remain free while investigations carry on and we do not expect them to stop working and be shunned by society.
I do worry that we are in danger of denuding the very precious idea of "innocence until proven guilty" of any real meaning and creating a whole new set of unfairnesses. It is precisely because sexual offence allegations are so serious that we should be wary of a "judgment first, trial later" approach.
Or am I alone in worrying about this?
You are not alone - I find it very troubling indeed. Until charged everything should be done to avoid jigsaw identification. And he has a job to do to represent his constituents. Does he get to vote? Take part in committees? I can understand that there might be an issue if the person accusing him is also at parliament, but this is not the way to handle it.
Innocent until proven guilty.
I am pretty sure that if a teacher was under suspicion like this he would have been sacked by now.!!
DWP to recruit more civil servants, give itself power of arrest, and wave goodbye to privacy
Pure evil from the Nasty Party
And all the while the big multi-nationals make billions of pounds of profit on which they pay little or no tax. And Sunak and Chums throw away billions on corrupt PPE deals and fraudulent bounce back loans.
Tackling benefit fraud is a good idea but this data grab looks like an authoritarian wet dream, and the likely sums involved in any individual case pale into insignificance against the other frauds you mention.
It will be a venture where the financial cost outweighs the financial benefit. Nonetheless hard working RedWallers hate a benefit "scrounger", so it is valuable window dressing.
I’d be surprised if that was the case. That’s not to say the government forecasts for savings are real, but the incremental costs of a team focused on this are marginal
I would gently suggest your posts are hardly conducive to a less confrontational society
That has absolutely nothing to do with my post
I would suggest it has a great deal to do with the constant theme of your posts
Big G lay off. I post left-of-centre and sometimes alternative views. You don't have to agree with them but of course they are going to 'seem' abrasive to someone of a right wing persuasion.
Is this a new even more alarming trend? That the Conservatives are getting so rattled that they now want to clamp down on free speech? On all views contrary to their increasingly Nasty Party? Certainly that would seem to be Priti Patel's wish.
I don't agree with everything you say but I do think you get unwarranted stick on here. VPNgate, for example. It has more than a whiff of misogyny in my opinion.
I salute your indefatigability!
To be fair, she also gives out unwarranted stick. I see little behaviour towards her that she does not give out herself.
About three months ago I realised that the only way for a female to exist on here, in my opinion, is to fight.
I think it's really sad but this is a mostly male and often aggressive bear pit of a place.
You might ask, why do I bother? Well it's because politics really interests me and I like betting on it, and offering betting tips on it.
I wish I could be a lot more gentle, which is what I'm like in real life, but I would be mowed down on here I'm afraid.
No need to reply to this please. It's a point of view. You may not agree with it but it won't change (in this instance) how I feel.
It really is not necessary to fight to survive on here. I have been here for quite some time and have not felt it necessary to get into personal fights with others. And, frankly, personal disputes are to my mind exceedingly tedious - along with most sport, FI and the culinary uses of pineapple in Italian cuisine. But it is very easy to scroll past these outpourings.
Of course you have your point of view and feelings. But as one of the relatively few women on here I really don't think you would be mowed down.
From what I've seen, the views and opinions of our female contributors have always been disporportionately welcomed simply because there are so few of you. But putting oneself forward "as a" woman doesn't excuse racism, sexism, general insults and diverting the debate.
It was quite some time after I first started contributing that I revealed I was a woman. And I remember one other poster, who no longer posts, who said that this could not be right because I argued "like a man" which I thought revealing in all sorts of ways that poster may not have intended.
Yes and I think that's my point, only expressed far better by you.
A question for all you Brits in Britain. How many of you are participating in Platinum Jubilee events? And how many of you are going to avoid them or even go abroad on holiday? I am curious to know!
I've posted something along these lines before. In my neck of the woods - post-industrial West Yorks, the flat eastern bit of the county - there is a noticeable lack of interest in these big national, often Royalty-related, events. No-one seems to give a damn. No street parties, no big events. Nothing.
I do remember ever so slightly having a party at my nursery for Charles and Di's wedding. And I'm told I was conceived after my parents had been at a Silver Jubilee bash in '77. So perhaps it wasn't always thus.
It's not that there's a burning republicanism here, and people certainly have great affection for Lizzy, I think it's just a general sense that all the Royal pageantry stuff, that traditional view of Britain, England, it represents is just so remote from people's lives and experience here.
I imagine that the tiny villages in rural, southern England, the Home Counties and the like, will pay more attention. The world that I think of as a Radio 4 land, where I imagine people play cricket and keep horses and read the Telegraph and work in the city and publishing and are architects and senior civil servants (no doubt a stereotype in itself) just feels a million miles away from how people live in Knottingley, Featherstone, Pontefract and Castleford.
I suspect it'll be more keenly observed in the western, hillier, more rural parts of W. Yorks.
I thought the 75th Anniversary of VE Day would be more celebrated in these parts but that was a damp squib too. But we were just emerging from lockdown 1 and everyone was still very jittery.
I thought there was quite a thing about playing cricket in Yorkshire. Even the industrial bits.
Not in my bit, though there is a Knottingley Town Cricket Club, but I don't know anyone involved with it. It's all football and rugby league. Only ever played cricket at high school in PE, and that was probably about 10 times in 5 years. Cricket seems to be more prevalent in the west of the county, Cleckhuddersfax land. Influx of Pakistanis over there has probably helped it to be more enduring.
Funnily enough I was speaking to someone the other day from west of Leeds who's involved in her local cricket club and she said kids just aren't getting into it now - not enough instant gratification in a time of games consoles, she reckons. They struggle to get umpires for matches too.
JJ, who is mostly it seems to me a decent person, claimed yesterday that homophobia and racism were far reduced yesterday. He cited examples of footballers and others harassed in the past for being gay and that now the situation is much better.
Well, yesterday's leading trend on twitter in the whole world was the hashtag 'we are all idrissa' in support of 's PSGSenegalese star Idrissa Gueye who refused to wear a shirt carrying the rainbow symbol.
Homosexuality is illegal in Senegal and in Qatar, who own PSG.
Two compatriots of Gueye who play in Britain tweeted in support of him.
I am afraid I see little or nothing in this country at the moment to damp down the culture wars and hatred being, I believe, deliberately now fanned into flame by Boris Johnson's appeal to a certain kind of red wall demographic.
It's godawful.
So your bewailing of homophobia in Britain is based upon the tweeting of two Senegalese footballers ?
FFS.
This is the kind of stupid response that is, presumably, intended to wind me up.
Any comment that begins, unironically, “I am a seer” is going to get some pushback because it is flatulently pompous
Unless, of course, you are trying to wind people up…
JJ, who is mostly it seems to me a decent person, claimed yesterday that homophobia and racism were far reduced yesterday. He cited examples of footballers and others harassed in the past for being gay and that now the situation is much better.
Well, yesterday's leading trend on twitter in the whole world was the hashtag 'we are all idrissa' in support of 's PSGSenegalese star Idrissa Gueye who refused to wear a shirt carrying the rainbow symbol.
Homosexuality is illegal in Senegal and in Qatar, who own PSG.
Two compatriots of Gueye who play in Britain tweeted in support of him.
I am afraid I see little or nothing in this country at the moment to damp down the culture wars and hatred being, I believe, deliberately now fanned into flame by Boris Johnson's appeal to a certain kind of red wall demographic.
It's godawful.
Set against 2 random footballers are the hundreds of supportive ones, the thousands of supportive fans and the undeniable movement of society towards inclusiveness.
Where you see a right wing culture war, I see a left wing one designed to divide.
And s/he complains when I say that s/he is a troll - that comment is the perfect example.
No it really isn't. If you look back at yesterday I had a good exchange about some of the issues which surfaced in football over the weekend. There were some really ugly incidents at several matches.
I'm not going to repeat them here as we need to move on. But I'm afraid hate of all sorts is being fanned into flame at the moment: racism, homophobia, transphobia, 'lazy' people who work from home, benefit fraudsters etc. etc.
It takes me back to the run up to Jo Cox's murder. We're heading into culture wars again and it's very unpleasant.
But my garden is lovely although bind weed is returning with this sub-tropical climate so needs some tough action.
A question for all you Brits in Britain. How many of you are participating in Platinum Jubilee events? And how many of you are going to avoid them or even go abroad on holiday? I am curious to know!
I've posted something along these lines before. In my neck of the woods - post-industrial West Yorks, the flat eastern bit of the county - there is a noticeable lack of interest in these big national, often Royalty-related, events. No-one seems to give a damn. No street parties, no big events. Nothing.
I do remember ever so slightly having a party at my nursery for Charles and Di's wedding. And I'm told I was conceived after my parents had been at a Silver Jubilee bash in '77. So perhaps it wasn't always thus.
It's not that there's a burning republicanism here, and people certainly have great affection for Lizzy, I think it's just a general sense that all the Royal pageantry stuff, that traditional view of Britain, England, it represents is just so remote from people's lives and experience here.
I imagine that the tiny villages in rural, southern England, the Home Counties and the like, will pay more attention. The world that I think of as a Radio 4 land, where I imagine people play cricket and keep horses and read the Telegraph and work in the city and publishing and are architects and senior civil servants (no doubt a stereotype in itself) just feels a million miles away from how people live in Knottingley, Featherstone, Pontefract and Castleford.
I suspect it'll be more keenly observed in the western, hillier, more rural parts of W. Yorks.
I thought the 75th Anniversary of VE Day would be more celebrated in these parts but that was a damp squib too. But we were just emerging from lockdown 1 and everyone was still very jittery.
I suspect its more of a thing for oldies or little kids.
But the 'fair in a park' type events seem to be all over:
A question for all you Brits in Britain. How many of you are participating in Platinum Jubilee events? And how many of you are going to avoid them or even go abroad on holiday? I am curious to know!
I've posted something along these lines before. In my neck of the woods - post-industrial West Yorks, the flat eastern bit of the county - there is a noticeable lack of interest in these big national, often Royalty-related, events. No-one seems to give a damn. No street parties, no big events. Nothing.
I do remember ever so slightly having a party at my nursery for Charles and Di's wedding. And I'm told I was conceived after my parents had been at a Silver Jubilee bash in '77. So perhaps it wasn't always thus.
It's not that there's a burning republicanism here, and people certainly have great affection for Lizzy, I think it's just a general sense that all the Royal pageantry stuff, that traditional view of Britain, England, it represents is just so remote from people's lives and experience here.
I imagine that the tiny villages in rural, southern England, the Home Counties and the like, will pay more attention. The world that I think of as a Radio 4 land, where I imagine people play cricket and keep horses and read the Telegraph and work in the city and publishing and are architects and senior civil servants (no doubt a stereotype in itself) just feels a million miles away from how people live in Knottingley, Featherstone, Pontefract and Castleford.
I suspect it'll be more keenly observed in the western, hillier, more rural parts of W. Yorks.
I thought the 75th Anniversary of VE Day would be more celebrated in these parts but that was a damp squib too. But we were just emerging from lockdown 1 and everyone was still very jittery.
I thought there was quite a thing about playing cricket in Yorkshire. Even the industrial bits.
Not in my bit, though there is a Knottingley Town Cricket Club, but I don't know anyone involved with it. It's all football and rugby league. Only ever played cricket at high school in PE, and that was probably about 10 times in 5 years. Cricket seems to be more prevalent in the west of the county, Cleckhuddersfax land. Influx of Pakistanis over there has probably helped it to be more enduring.
Funnily enough I was speaking to someone the other day from west of Leeds who's involved in her local cricket club and she said kids just aren't getting into it now - not enough instant gratification in a time of games consoles, she reckons. They struggle to get umpires for matches too.
Interesting. Hadn't thought of that before. Cricket as a Pennine thing. True in Lancashire too. The flatter it gets, the less cricket. Mm.
Reflecting on the almost stabbing earlier. Was really impressed with potential stabee. When the girlfriend got between them and gave him the space to get up, he could have done some serious damage. He was eight inches taller, about six stone heavier, twice as fit and 100 times more sober. But he didn't. Just kept repeating. "It wasn't me. I didn't do that. You've got the wrong blerk mate. Go home before you regret it." Even as stabby bloke threatened him, his family and his mates. Not sure I could have been that cool in the circumstances.
Why does that impress you...to my mind kick the fucker into the middle of next week and one less idiot in the world. You know stabby guy is going to do it again and next time may well kill someone.
Fuck it: why bother with courts or justice, you just get your boot in.
The guy was trying to stab him in this case. I have no problem if he defends himself and an idiot happens to end up bleeding out. Its not like he was not guilty
Also if it had gone to court stabby guy assuming he would even get a custodial sentence would be out in a year or two and will continue as he is till he kills someone.
Trying de-escalation is absolutely the right approach. You may not be fully aware of the consequences of knife crime, but this is a great organisation
I do not wish to speculate about the MP being investigated for alleged sexual offences.
But am I the only one a touch troubled by the order to stay away from Parliament during the investigation?
If there is a concern about interference with witnesses or evidence, that is one thing. But in the absence of that, is this really acceptable? First, it risks identifying the person or putting others under unfair suspicion. Second, why should someone who has not even been charged be prevented from doing a key part of their job? A person is innocent until proven guilty. Keeping someone away even when not charged is implying that they are somehow in the wrong and when they do come back, assuming no charge, that will hang round them.
I realise there are other considerations. But lots of people remain free while investigations carry on and we do not expect them to stop working and be shunned by society.
I do worry that we are in danger of denuding the very precious idea of "innocence until proven guilty" of any real meaning and creating a whole new set of unfairnesses. It is precisely because sexual offence allegations are so serious that we should be wary of a "judgment first, trial later" approach.
Or am I alone in worrying about this?
You are not alone - I find it very troubling indeed. Until charged everything should be done to avoid jigsaw identification. And he has a job to do to represent his constituents. Does he get to vote? Take part in committees? I can understand that there might be an issue if the person accusing him is also at parliament, but this is not the way to handle it.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Anybody who cares to find out knows who the fucker is anyway so it makes no difference.
That's not the issue which concerns me. But the demand that the MP should be prevented from doing a key part of their job despite not being charged.
Let me give another example. Starmer has said that he will resign his position if given an FPN. He is currently under police investigation. Should he be required to stop doing part of his job?
Obvious retort: Covid rules are less serious than sex offences. Sure - but at this stage, all we have are allegations and hey presto an MP is effectively hobbled from doing their job.
Not sure I agree with you on this. If a teacher faces a credible allegation of (sexual) assault by a student, s/he will normally be suspended on full pay until the case is resolved; and of course s/he may well be innocent. But just in case the allegation is true, the school/governors have little choice but to keep said teacher away from students, don't they?
I do not wish to speculate about the MP being investigated for alleged sexual offences.
But am I the only one a touch troubled by the order to stay away from Parliament during the investigation?
If there is a concern about interference with witnesses or evidence, that is one thing. But in the absence of that, is this really acceptable? First, it risks identifying the person or putting others under unfair suspicion. Second, why should someone who has not even been charged be prevented from doing a key part of their job? A person is innocent until proven guilty. Keeping someone away even when not charged is implying that they are somehow in the wrong and when they do come back, assuming no charge, that will hang round them.
I realise there are other considerations. But lots of people remain free while investigations carry on and we do not expect them to stop working and be shunned by society.
I do worry that we are in danger of denuding the very precious idea of "innocence until proven guilty" of any real meaning and creating a whole new set of unfairnesses. It is precisely because sexual offence allegations are so serious that we should be wary of a "judgment first, trial later" approach.
Or am I alone in worrying about this?
You are not alone - I find it very troubling indeed. Until charged everything should be done to avoid jigsaw identification. And he has a job to do to represent his constituents. Does he get to vote? Take part in committees? I can understand that there might be an issue if the person accusing him is also at parliament, but this is not the way to handle it.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Innocent until proven guilty is true, but glib. Taken to its logical extreme, nobody would ever be remanded in custody until their trial has concluded. Not sure the GBP would be happy about that - unconvicted but suspected terrorist bombers released on bail?
In the case of the MP, however, the issue is that the police/CPS should get on with it and decide whether to prosecute. If they do, then I think it's legitimate to exclude him from the HoC.
This person has not even been charged yet. I'd imagine complaints have been made, the police have looked at them, arrested the chap in order to interview for his side of the story under caution.
He may never be charged.
At this point he is innocent.
After charging is different. At that point the CPS has made a judgement that there is a case to answer, and where appropriate (flight risk, potential for further crime etc) he may be held on remand, or he may not.
The danger we have now is the instant social media race to convict on the flimsiest of evidence. Its not good.
On the issue of the MP asked to stay away from the Commons, another thing to consider is, would the same approach be applied to any (Tory? Maybe it’s their policy) MP? Would it be applied to a Cabinet Minister?
JJ, who is mostly it seems to me a decent person, claimed yesterday that homophobia and racism were far reduced yesterday. He cited examples of footballers and others harassed in the past for being gay and that now the situation is much better.
Well, yesterday's leading trend on twitter in the whole world was the hashtag 'we are all idrissa' in support of 's PSGSenegalese star Idrissa Gueye who refused to wear a shirt carrying the rainbow symbol.
Homosexuality is illegal in Senegal and in Qatar, who own PSG.
Two compatriots of Gueye who play in Britain tweeted in support of him.
I am afraid I see little or nothing in this country at the moment to damp down the culture wars and hatred being, I believe, deliberately now fanned into flame by Boris Johnson's appeal to a certain kind of red wall demographic.
It's godawful.
So your bewailing of homophobia in Britain is based upon the tweeting of two Senegalese footballers ?
FFS.
This is the kind of stupid response that is, presumably, intended to wind me up.
Any comment that begins, unironically, “I am a seer” is going to get some pushback because it is flatulently pompous
Unless, of course, you are trying to wind people up…
Funnily enough, when I saw a post starting with "I am a seer", I assumed it was going to be from you, Leon.
Politically, I favour Mordaunt. Her situation Tory-leader-wise looks good at the moment. Someone is briefing against Truss, and if it's anything like as good as the Sunak takedown, she's a goner. Tugendhat is just a nobody, no idea why he's there. I can't see people going for Hunt, as it would be considered a backward step. That leaves Mordaunt against Wallace, which she will win.
I thought you were a Vlad man?
Excellent though that would be, the renovations required to No. 10 to accommodate the size of the furniture would be cost prohibitive.
We can do it! Princess Anne visited Ely Cathedral in Cambridgeshire earlier to unveil the 13m (43ft) table created from a black oak, found buried and preserved in a field in Norfolk, in 2012. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-61487686 edit
I like Anne. She’s a real chip off the old block.
Tricky passing the marmalade or jogging to the butter knife.
A question for all you Brits in Britain. How many of you are participating in Platinum Jubilee events? And how many of you are going to avoid them or even go abroad on holiday? I am curious to know!
I've posted something along these lines before. In my neck of the woods - post-industrial West Yorks, the flat eastern bit of the county - there is a noticeable lack of interest in these big national, often Royalty-related, events. No-one seems to give a damn. No street parties, no big events. Nothing.
I do remember ever so slightly having a party at my nursery for Charles and Di's wedding. And I'm told I was conceived after my parents had been at a Silver Jubilee bash in '77. So perhaps it wasn't always thus.
It's not that there's a burning republicanism here, and people certainly have great affection for Lizzy, I think it's just a general sense that all the Royal pageantry stuff, that traditional view of Britain, England, it represents is just so remote from people's lives and experience here.
I imagine that the tiny villages in rural, southern England, the Home Counties and the like, will pay more attention. The world that I think of as a Radio 4 land, where I imagine people play cricket and keep horses and read the Telegraph and work in the city and publishing and are architects and senior civil servants (no doubt a stereotype in itself) just feels a million miles away from how people live in Knottingley, Featherstone, Pontefract and Castleford.
I suspect it'll be more keenly observed in the western, hillier, more rural parts of W. Yorks.
I thought the 75th Anniversary of VE Day would be more celebrated in these parts but that was a damp squib too. But we were just emerging from lockdown 1 and everyone was still very jittery.
I thought there was quite a thing about playing cricket in Yorkshire. Even the industrial bits.
Those Home Counties Radio 4 listeners are unlikely to be reading the Telegraph either, especially if they are architects or retired civil servants. They’ll be leafing through the Guardian or FT, paying modest attention to any jubilee shenanigans, and looking forward to their next opportunity to pop down the polling station to vote Lib Dem.
Reflecting on the almost stabbing earlier. Was really impressed with potential stabee. When the girlfriend got between them and gave him the space to get up, he could have done some serious damage. He was eight inches taller, about six stone heavier, twice as fit and 100 times more sober. But he didn't. Just kept repeating. "It wasn't me. I didn't do that. You've got the wrong blerk mate. Go home before you regret it." Even as stabby bloke threatened him, his family and his mates. Not sure I could have been that cool in the circumstances.
Why does that impress you...to my mind kick the fucker into the middle of next week and one less idiot in the world. You know stabby guy is going to do it again and next time may well kill someone.
Fuck it: why bother with courts or justice, you just get your boot in.
The guy was trying to stab him in this case. I have no problem if he defends himself and an idiot happens to end up bleeding out. Its not like he was not guilty
Also if it had gone to court stabby guy assuming he would even get a custodial sentence would be out in a year or two and will continue as he is till he kills someone.
Trying de-escalation is absolutely the right approach. You may not be fully aware of the consequences of knife crime, but this is a great organisation
The criminal justice system is not structurally optimised for the prosection of well off, middle aged white men with violent crimes so I reckon most pb.com regulars can get stuck the fuck in with no worries.
I do not wish to speculate about the MP being investigated for alleged sexual offences.
But am I the only one a touch troubled by the order to stay away from Parliament during the investigation?
If there is a concern about interference with witnesses or evidence, that is one thing. But in the absence of that, is this really acceptable? First, it risks identifying the person or putting others under unfair suspicion. Second, why should someone who has not even been charged be prevented from doing a key part of their job? A person is innocent until proven guilty. Keeping someone away even when not charged is implying that they are somehow in the wrong and when they do come back, assuming no charge, that will hang round them.
I realise there are other considerations. But lots of people remain free while investigations carry on and we do not expect them to stop working and be shunned by society.
I do worry that we are in danger of denuding the very precious idea of "innocence until proven guilty" of any real meaning and creating a whole new set of unfairnesses. It is precisely because sexual offence allegations are so serious that we should be wary of a "judgment first, trial later" approach.
Or am I alone in worrying about this?
You are not alone - I find it very troubling indeed. Until charged everything should be done to avoid jigsaw identification. And he has a job to do to represent his constituents. Does he get to vote? Take part in committees? I can understand that there might be an issue if the person accusing him is also at parliament, but this is not the way to handle it.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Anybody who cares to find out knows who the fucker is anyway so it makes no difference.
That's not the issue which concerns me. But the demand that the MP should be prevented from doing a key part of their job despite not being charged.
Let me give another example. Starmer has said that he will resign his position if given an FPN. He is currently under police investigation. Should he be required to stop doing part of his job?
Obvious retort: Covid rules are less serious than sex offences. Sure - but at this stage, all we have are allegations and hey presto an MP is effectively hobbled from doing their job.
Not sure I agree with you on this. If a teacher faces a credible allegation of (sexual) assault by a student, s/he will normally be suspended on full pay until the case is resolved; and of course s/he may well be innocent. But just in case the allegation is true, the school/governors have little choice but to keep said teacher away from students, don't they?
Yes - but in a school there are safeguarding obligations. And I did say that if there was a risk of contaminating evidence or attacking witnesses, then that might be a reason for keeping someone away. So there are times when suspending someone may be the right thing to do.
But is it right here? I fear that it is being done simply to deal with perception issues or to be seen to be doing something with little regard given to the accused person's rights. These issues are always a balancing act. I wonder how much careful thought has been given to the various considerations.
In light of the horrors uncovered at Bucharest and yesterday's trial of a Russian soldier accused of war crimes in Ukraine, this is very well worth listening to - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00100rd.
Less about the ins and outs of the Nuremberg trial and more about the stories told by Sir Hartley Shawcross and the reactions of his son and other children and grandchildren of participants. Essential listening.
I do not wish to speculate about the MP being investigated for alleged sexual offences.
But am I the only one a touch troubled by the order to stay away from Parliament during the investigation?
If there is a concern about interference with witnesses or evidence, that is one thing. But in the absence of that, is this really acceptable? First, it risks identifying the person or putting others under unfair suspicion. Second, why should someone who has not even been charged be prevented from doing a key part of their job? A person is innocent until proven guilty. Keeping someone away even when not charged is implying that they are somehow in the wrong and when they do come back, assuming no charge, that will hang round them.
I realise there are other considerations. But lots of people remain free while investigations carry on and we do not expect them to stop working and be shunned by society.
I do worry that we are in danger of denuding the very precious idea of "innocence until proven guilty" of any real meaning and creating a whole new set of unfairnesses. It is precisely because sexual offence allegations are so serious that we should be wary of a "judgment first, trial later" approach.
Or am I alone in worrying about this?
You are not alone - I find it very troubling indeed. Until charged everything should be done to avoid jigsaw identification. And he has a job to do to represent his constituents. Does he get to vote? Take part in committees? I can understand that there might be an issue if the person accusing him is also at parliament, but this is not the way to handle it.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Innocent until proven guilty is true, but glib. Taken to its logical extreme, nobody would ever be remanded in custody until their trial has concluded. Not sure the GBP would be happy about that - unconvicted but suspected terrorist bombers released on bail?
In the case of the MP, however, the issue is that the police/CPS should get on with it and decide whether to prosecute. If they do, then I think it's legitimate to exclude him from the HoC.
This person has not even been charged yet. I'd imagine complaints have been made, the police have looked at them, arrested the chap in order to interview for his side of the story under caution.
He may never be charged.
At this point he is innocent.
After charging is different. At that point the CPS has made a judgement that there is a case to answer, and where appropriate (flight risk, potential for further crime etc) he may be held on remand, or he may not.
The danger we have now is the instant social media race to convict on the flimsiest of evidence. Its not good.
Yeah, I think nothing should be public until someone has been charged.
JJ, who is mostly it seems to me a decent person, claimed yesterday that homophobia and racism were far reduced yesterday. He cited examples of footballers and others harassed in the past for being gay and that now the situation is much better.
Well, yesterday's leading trend on twitter in the whole world was the hashtag 'we are all idrissa' in support of 's PSGSenegalese star Idrissa Gueye who refused to wear a shirt carrying the rainbow symbol.
Homosexuality is illegal in Senegal and in Qatar, who own PSG.
Two compatriots of Gueye who play in Britain tweeted in support of him.
I am afraid I see little or nothing in this country at the moment to damp down the culture wars and hatred being, I believe, deliberately now fanned into flame by Boris Johnson's appeal to a certain kind of red wall demographic.
It's godawful.
So your bewailing of homophobia in Britain is based upon the tweeting of two Senegalese footballers ?
FFS.
This is the kind of stupid response that is, presumably, intended to wind me up.
Any comment that begins, unironically, “I am a seer” is going to get some pushback because it is flatulently pompous
Unless, of course, you are trying to wind people up…
Funnily enough, when I saw a post starting with "I am a seer", I assumed it was going to be from you, Leon.
Quite possibly, but I would have been at least half-joking, if so
Anyway, good morning to all, bots, trolls, misogynist Cryptoids and Surrey based Buddhists alike, from a cool but sunny Meteora. Quite a place
A question for all you Brits in Britain. How many of you are participating in Platinum Jubilee events? And how many of you are going to avoid them or even go abroad on holiday? I am curious to know!
I've posted something along these lines before. In my neck of the woods - post-industrial West Yorks, the flat eastern bit of the county - there is a noticeable lack of interest in these big national, often Royalty-related, events. No-one seems to give a damn. No street parties, no big events. Nothing.
I do remember ever so slightly having a party at my nursery for Charles and Di's wedding. And I'm told I was conceived after my parents had been at a Silver Jubilee bash in '77. So perhaps it wasn't always thus.
It's not that there's a burning republicanism here, and people certainly have great affection for Lizzy, I think it's just a general sense that all the Royal pageantry stuff, that traditional view of Britain, England, it represents is just so remote from people's lives and experience here.
I imagine that the tiny villages in rural, southern England, the Home Counties and the like, will pay more attention. The world that I think of as a Radio 4 land, where I imagine people play cricket and keep horses and read the Telegraph and work in the city and publishing and are architects and senior civil servants (no doubt a stereotype in itself) just feels a million miles away from how people live in Knottingley, Featherstone, Pontefract and Castleford.
I suspect it'll be more keenly observed in the western, hillier, more rural parts of W. Yorks.
I thought the 75th Anniversary of VE Day would be more celebrated in these parts but that was a damp squib too. But we were just emerging from lockdown 1 and everyone was still very jittery.
I suspect its more of a thing for oldies or little kids.
But the 'fair in a park' type events seem to be all over:
Oh cheers, I hadn’t heard about that. Not that I’ll go! But hopefully the weather’ll be nice and people have a good day.
They’ve spent some money on the castle recently but I wish they had the funds to properly excavate it and reveal what’s left. It was destroyed by an act of parliament after the civil war. Which is a shame because it was a huge, major fortification. Pontefract would be a very different place if it had survived to be a tourist attraction.
I would gently suggest your posts are hardly conducive to a less confrontational society
That has absolutely nothing to do with my post
I would suggest it has a great deal to do with the constant theme of your posts
Big G lay off. I post left-of-centre and sometimes alternative views. You don't have to agree with them but of course they are going to 'seem' abrasive to someone of a right wing persuasion.
Is this a new even more alarming trend? That the Conservatives are getting so rattled that they now want to clamp down on free speech? On all views contrary to their increasingly Nasty Party? Certainly that would seem to be Priti Patel's wish.
You seem to have this strange view that anyone who may criticise you is of a right wing persuasion, are part of a nasty party and somehow in this instance refer to Patel
I am not a member of the conservative party, am most certainly not right wing, and have consistently condemned Patel
Back off her. You are bullying her. It is deeply unpleasant.
I do not wish to speculate about the MP being investigated for alleged sexual offences.
But am I the only one a touch troubled by the order to stay away from Parliament during the investigation?
If there is a concern about interference with witnesses or evidence, that is one thing. But in the absence of that, is this really acceptable? First, it risks identifying the person or putting others under unfair suspicion. Second, why should someone who has not even been charged be prevented from doing a key part of their job? A person is innocent until proven guilty. Keeping someone away even when not charged is implying that they are somehow in the wrong and when they do come back, assuming no charge, that will hang round them.
I realise there are other considerations. But lots of people remain free while investigations carry on and we do not expect them to stop working and be shunned by society.
I do worry that we are in danger of denuding the very precious idea of "innocence until proven guilty" of any real meaning and creating a whole new set of unfairnesses. It is precisely because sexual offence allegations are so serious that we should be wary of a "judgment first, trial later" approach.
Or am I alone in worrying about this?
You are not alone - I find it very troubling indeed. Until charged everything should be done to avoid jigsaw identification. And he has a job to do to represent his constituents. Does he get to vote? Take part in committees? I can understand that there might be an issue if the person accusing him is also at parliament, but this is not the way to handle it.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Anybody who cares to find out knows who the fucker is anyway so it makes no difference.
That's not the issue which concerns me. But the demand that the MP should be prevented from doing a key part of their job despite not being charged.
Let me give another example. Starmer has said that he will resign his position if given an FPN. He is currently under police investigation. Should he be required to stop doing part of his job?
Obvious retort: Covid rules are less serious than sex offences. Sure - but at this stage, all we have are allegations and hey presto an MP is effectively hobbled from doing their job.
Not sure I agree with you on this. If a teacher faces a credible allegation of (sexual) assault by a student, s/he will normally be suspended on full pay until the case is resolved; and of course s/he may well be innocent. But just in case the allegation is true, the school/governors have little choice but to keep said teacher away from students, don't they?
Yes - but in a school there are safeguarding obligations. And I did say that if there was a risk of contaminating evidence or attacking witnesses, then that might be a reason for keeping someone away. So there are times when suspending someone may be the right thing to do.
But is it right here? I fear that it is being done simply to deal with perception issues or to be seen to be doing something with little regard given to the accused person's rights. These issues are always a balancing act. I wonder how much careful thought has been given to the various considerations.
I would imagine a lot of thought has been given; the Speaker receives wise counsel from various aides. Let's imagine the evidence against this MP is fairly compelling (too early for us to know, I recognise). You mention safeguarding in schools; does the Speaker not have a similar obligation to protect female staff (of whom there are hundreds, I don't mean MPs) in the HoC from a potentially predatory male?
JJ, who is mostly it seems to me a decent person, claimed yesterday that homophobia and racism were far reduced yesterday. He cited examples of footballers and others harassed in the past for being gay and that now the situation is much better.
Well, yesterday's leading trend on twitter in the whole world was the hashtag 'we are all idrissa' in support of 's PSGSenegalese star Idrissa Gueye who refused to wear a shirt carrying the rainbow symbol.
Homosexuality is illegal in Senegal and in Qatar, who own PSG.
Two compatriots of Gueye who play in Britain tweeted in support of him.
I am afraid I see little or nothing in this country at the moment to damp down the culture wars and hatred being, I believe, deliberately now fanned into flame by Boris Johnson's appeal to a certain kind of red wall demographic.
It's godawful.
Set against 2 random footballers are the hundreds of supportive ones, the thousands of supportive fans and the undeniable movement of society towards inclusiveness.
Where you see a right wing culture war, I see a left wing one designed to divide.
And s/he complains when I say that s/he is a troll - that comment is the perfect example.
No it really isn't. If you look back at yesterday I had a good exchange about some of the issues which surfaced in football over the weekend. There were some really ugly incidents at several matches.
I'm not going to repeat them here as we need to move on. But I'm afraid hate of all sorts is being fanned into flame at the moment: racism, homophobia, transphobia, 'lazy' people who work from home, benefit fraudsters etc. etc.
It takes me back to the run up to Jo Cox's murder. We're heading into culture wars again and it's very unpleasant.
But my garden is lovely although bind weed is returning with this sub-tropical climate so needs some tough action.
I think the problem is - and I say this from a positioning of considering you neither a troll nor a bot - that on a number of these subjects you are just as much responsible for driving the culture war as those you accuse. In the trans debate you have leapt in on a number of occasions and accused those who disagree with your position of being extremists and transphobic with no evidence other than they put forward positions which, whilst perfectly reasonable, are not in agreement with your views. On a number of issues you are far more of an extremist than those you accuse and you seem to have a curious blind spot about your own failings in this.
As I say, if you want to look at people who are driving us towards culture wars then look to yourself.
JJ, who is mostly it seems to me a decent person, claimed yesterday that homophobia and racism were far reduced yesterday. He cited examples of footballers and others harassed in the past for being gay and that now the situation is much better.
Well, yesterday's leading trend on twitter in the whole world was the hashtag 'we are all idrissa' in support of 's PSGSenegalese star Idrissa Gueye who refused to wear a shirt carrying the rainbow symbol.
Homosexuality is illegal in Senegal and in Qatar, who own PSG.
Two compatriots of Gueye who play in Britain tweeted in support of him.
I am afraid I see little or nothing in this country at the moment to damp down the culture wars and hatred being, I believe, deliberately now fanned into flame by Boris Johnson's appeal to a certain kind of red wall demographic.
It's godawful.
Set against 2 random footballers are the hundreds of supportive ones, the thousands of supportive fans and the undeniable movement of society towards inclusiveness.
Where you see a right wing culture war, I see a left wing one designed to divide.
And s/he complains when I say that s/he is a troll - that comment is the perfect example.
No it really isn't. If you look back at yesterday I had a good exchange about some of the issues which surfaced in football over the weekend. There were some really ugly incidents at several matches.
I'm not going to repeat them here as we need to move on. But I'm afraid hate of all sorts is being fanned into flame at the moment: racism, homophobia, transphobia, 'lazy' people who work from home, benefit fraudsters etc. etc.
It takes me back to the run up to Jo Cox's murder. We're heading into culture wars again and it's very unpleasant.
But my garden is lovely although bind weed is returning with this sub-tropical climate so needs some tough action.
I would gently suggest your posts are hardly conducive to a less confrontational society
That has absolutely nothing to do with my post
I would suggest it has a great deal to do with the constant theme of your posts
Big G lay off. I post left-of-centre and sometimes alternative views. You don't have to agree with them but of course they are going to 'seem' abrasive to someone of a right wing persuasion.
Is this a new even more alarming trend? That the Conservatives are getting so rattled that they now want to clamp down on free speech? On all views contrary to their increasingly Nasty Party? Certainly that would seem to be Priti Patel's wish.
I don't agree with everything you say but I do think you get unwarranted stick on here. VPNgate, for example. It has more than a whiff of misogyny in my opinion.
I salute your indefatigability!
To be fair, she also gives out unwarranted stick. I see little behaviour towards her that she does not give out herself.
About three months ago I realised that the only way for a female to exist on here, in my opinion, is to fight.
I think it's really sad but this is a mostly male and often aggressive bear pit of a place.
You might ask, why do I bother? Well it's because politics really interests me and I like betting on it, and offering betting tips on it.
I wish I could be a lot more gentle, which is what I'm like in real life, but I would be mowed down on here I'm afraid.
No need to reply to this please. It's a point of view. You may not agree with it but it won't change (in this instance) how I feel.
It really is not necessary to fight to survive on here. I have been here for quite some time and have not felt it necessary to get into personal fights with others. And, frankly, personal disputes are to my mind exceedingly tedious - along with most sport, FI and the culinary uses of pineapple in Italian cuisine. But it is very easy to scroll past these outpourings.
Of course you have your point of view and feelings. But as one of the relatively few women on here I really don't think you would be mowed down.
From what I've seen, the views and opinions of our female contributors have always been disporportionately welcomed simply because there are so few of you. But putting oneself forward "as a" woman doesn't excuse racism, sexism, general insults and diverting the debate.
If you were to sanction posters for "general insults and diverting the debate", there'd be hardly anybody left on this forum.
I do not wish to speculate about the MP being investigated for alleged sexual offences.
But am I the only one a touch troubled by the order to stay away from Parliament during the investigation?
If there is a concern about interference with witnesses or evidence, that is one thing. But in the absence of that, is this really acceptable? First, it risks identifying the person or putting others under unfair suspicion. Second, why should someone who has not even been charged be prevented from doing a key part of their job? A person is innocent until proven guilty. Keeping someone away even when not charged is implying that they are somehow in the wrong and when they do come back, assuming no charge, that will hang round them.
I realise there are other considerations. But lots of people remain free while investigations carry on and we do not expect them to stop working and be shunned by society.
I do worry that we are in danger of denuding the very precious idea of "innocence until proven guilty" of any real meaning and creating a whole new set of unfairnesses. It is precisely because sexual offence allegations are so serious that we should be wary of a "judgment first, trial later" approach.
Or am I alone in worrying about this?
You are not alone - I find it very troubling indeed. Until charged everything should be done to avoid jigsaw identification. And he has a job to do to represent his constituents. Does he get to vote? Take part in committees? I can understand that there might be an issue if the person accusing him is also at parliament, but this is not the way to handle it.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Anybody who cares to find out knows who the fucker is anyway so it makes no difference.
That's not the issue which concerns me. But the demand that the MP should be prevented from doing a key part of their job despite not being charged.
Let me give another example. Starmer has said that he will resign his position if given an FPN. He is currently under police investigation. Should he be required to stop doing part of his job?
Obvious retort: Covid rules are less serious than sex offences. Sure - but at this stage, all we have are allegations and hey presto an MP is effectively hobbled from doing their job.
Not sure I agree with you on this. If a teacher faces a credible allegation of (sexual) assault by a student, s/he will normally be suspended on full pay until the case is resolved; and of course s/he may well be innocent. But just in case the allegation is true, the school/governors have little choice but to keep said teacher away from students, don't they?
Yes - but in a school there are safeguarding obligations. And I did say that if there was a risk of contaminating evidence or attacking witnesses, then that might be a reason for keeping someone away. So there are times when suspending someone may be the right thing to do.
But is it right here? I fear that it is being done simply to deal with perception issues or to be seen to be doing something with little regard given to the accused person's rights. These issues are always a balancing act. I wonder how much careful thought has been given to the various considerations.
I would imagine a lot of thought has been given; the Speaker receives wise counsel from various aides. Let's imagine the evidence against this MP is fairly compelling (too early for us to know, I recognise). You mention safeguarding in schools; does the Speaker not have a similar obligation to protect female staff (of whom there are hundreds, I don't mean MPs) in the HoC from a potentially predatory male?
If the evidence is compelling they must charge immediately. Only the police can make that determination in conjunction with the CPS. Until they charge nobody can know enough to make a fair decision on this. The police/CPS need to get the f on with it
I would gently suggest your posts are hardly conducive to a less confrontational society
That has absolutely nothing to do with my post
I would suggest it has a great deal to do with the constant theme of your posts
Big G lay off. I post left-of-centre and sometimes alternative views. You don't have to agree with them but of course they are going to 'seem' abrasive to someone of a right wing persuasion.
Is this a new even more alarming trend? That the Conservatives are getting so rattled that they now want to clamp down on free speech? On all views contrary to their increasingly Nasty Party? Certainly that would seem to be Priti Patel's wish.
I don't agree with everything you say but I do think you get unwarranted stick on here. VPNgate, for example. It has more than a whiff of misogyny in my opinion.
I salute your indefatigability!
To be fair, she also gives out unwarranted stick. I see little behaviour towards her that she does not give out herself.
About three months ago I realised that the only way for a female to exist on here, in my opinion, is to fight.
I think it's really sad but this is a mostly male and often aggressive bear pit of a place.
You might ask, why do I bother? Well it's because politics really interests me and I like betting on it, and offering betting tips on it.
I wish I could be a lot more gentle, which is what I'm like in real life, but I would be mowed down on here I'm afraid.
No need to reply to this please. It's a point of view. You may not agree with it but it won't change (in this instance) how I feel.
It really is not necessary to fight to survive on here. I have been here for quite some time and have not felt it necessary to get into personal fights with others. And, frankly, personal disputes are to my mind exceedingly tedious - along with most sport, FI and the culinary uses of pineapple in Italian cuisine. But it is very easy to scroll past these outpourings.
Of course you have your point of view and feelings. But as one of the relatively few women on here I really don't think you would be mowed down.
From what I've seen, the views and opinions of our female contributors have always been disporportionately welcomed simply because there are so few of you. But putting oneself forward "as a" woman doesn't excuse racism, sexism, general insults and diverting the debate.
It was quite some time after I first started contributing that I revealed I was a woman. And I remember one other poster, who no longer posts, who said that this could not be right because I argued "like a man" which I thought revealing in all sorts of ways that poster may not have intended.
Yes and I think that's my point, only expressed far better by you.
x
I was interviewed recently by an anthropologist (really!) writing a piece on political betting - I think he's talked to several of you. One of his points was that PB *appeared* to be very, very male (he went to the meet-up and says it was 100% male). I told him that Cyclefree, Heathener and Beibherli were all female (as far as I was aware, who knows how everyone may be transitioning), and he was quite surprised. So I think the comment
"About three months ago I realised that the only way for a female to exist on here, in my opinion, is to fight.
I think it's really sad but this is a mostly male and often aggressive bear pit of a place."
is more true than is comfortable. We should probably all rein in the testosterone a bit.
I do not wish to speculate about the MP being investigated for alleged sexual offences.
But am I the only one a touch troubled by the order to stay away from Parliament during the investigation?
If there is a concern about interference with witnesses or evidence, that is one thing. But in the absence of that, is this really acceptable? First, it risks identifying the person or putting others under unfair suspicion. Second, why should someone who has not even been charged be prevented from doing a key part of their job? A person is innocent until proven guilty. Keeping someone away even when not charged is implying that they are somehow in the wrong and when they do come back, assuming no charge, that will hang round them.
I realise there are other considerations. But lots of people remain free while investigations carry on and we do not expect them to stop working and be shunned by society.
I do worry that we are in danger of denuding the very precious idea of "innocence until proven guilty" of any real meaning and creating a whole new set of unfairnesses. It is precisely because sexual offence allegations are so serious that we should be wary of a "judgment first, trial later" approach.
Or am I alone in worrying about this?
You are not alone - I find it very troubling indeed. Until charged everything should be done to avoid jigsaw identification. And he has a job to do to represent his constituents. Does he get to vote? Take part in committees? I can understand that there might be an issue if the person accusing him is also at parliament, but this is not the way to handle it.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Anybody who cares to find out knows who the fucker is anyway so it makes no difference.
That's not the issue which concerns me. But the demand that the MP should be prevented from doing a key part of their job despite not being charged.
Let me give another example. Starmer has said that he will resign his position if given an FPN. He is currently under police investigation. Should he be required to stop doing part of his job?
Obvious retort: Covid rules are less serious than sex offences. Sure - but at this stage, all we have are allegations and hey presto an MP is effectively hobbled from doing their job.
Not sure I agree with you on this. If a teacher faces a credible allegation of (sexual) assault by a student, s/he will normally be suspended on full pay until the case is resolved; and of course s/he may well be innocent. But just in case the allegation is true, the school/governors have little choice but to keep said teacher away from students, don't they?
Yes - but in a school there are safeguarding obligations. And I did say that if there was a risk of contaminating evidence or attacking witnesses, then that might be a reason for keeping someone away. So there are times when suspending someone may be the right thing to do.
But is it right here? I fear that it is being done simply to deal with perception issues or to be seen to be doing something with little regard given to the accused person's rights. These issues are always a balancing act. I wonder how much careful thought has been given to the various considerations.
I would imagine a lot of thought has been given; the Speaker receives wise counsel from various aides. Let's imagine the evidence against this MP is fairly compelling (too early for us to know, I recognise). You mention safeguarding in schools; does the Speaker not have a similar obligation to protect female staff (of whom there are hundreds, I don't mean MPs) in the HoC from a potentially predatory male?
If the evidence is compelling they must charge immediately. Only the police can make that determination in conjunction with the CPS. Until they charge nobody can know enough to make a fair decision on this. The police/CPS need to get the f on with it
I agree, and said exactly that in an earlier post.
JJ, who is mostly it seems to me a decent person, claimed yesterday that homophobia and racism were far reduced yesterday. He cited examples of footballers and others harassed in the past for being gay and that now the situation is much better.
Well, yesterday's leading trend on twitter in the whole world was the hashtag 'we are all idrissa' in support of 's PSGSenegalese star Idrissa Gueye who refused to wear a shirt carrying the rainbow symbol.
Homosexuality is illegal in Senegal and in Qatar, who own PSG.
Two compatriots of Gueye who play in Britain tweeted in support of him.
I am afraid I see little or nothing in this country at the moment to damp down the culture wars and hatred being, I believe, deliberately now fanned into flame by Boris Johnson's appeal to a certain kind of red wall demographic.
It's godawful.
The mistake you're making is in thinking Twitter is representative of anything.
I would gently suggest your posts are hardly conducive to a less confrontational society
That has absolutely nothing to do with my post
I would suggest it has a great deal to do with the constant theme of your posts
Big G lay off. I post left-of-centre and sometimes alternative views. You don't have to agree with them but of course they are going to 'seem' abrasive to someone of a right wing persuasion.
Is this a new even more alarming trend? That the Conservatives are getting so rattled that they now want to clamp down on free speech? On all views contrary to their increasingly Nasty Party? Certainly that would seem to be Priti Patel's wish.
I don't agree with everything you say but I do think you get unwarranted stick on here. VPNgate, for example. It has more than a whiff of misogyny in my opinion.
I salute your indefatigability!
To be fair, she also gives out unwarranted stick. I see little behaviour towards her that she does not give out herself.
About three months ago I realised that the only way for a female to exist on here, in my opinion, is to fight.
I think it's really sad but this is a mostly male and often aggressive bear pit of a place.
You might ask, why do I bother? Well it's because politics really interests me and I like betting on it, and offering betting tips on it.
I wish I could be a lot more gentle, which is what I'm like in real life, but I would be mowed down on here I'm afraid.
No need to reply to this please. It's a point of view. You may not agree with it but it won't change (in this instance) how I feel.
It really is not necessary to fight to survive on here. I have been here for quite some time and have not felt it necessary to get into personal fights with others. And, frankly, personal disputes are to my mind exceedingly tedious - along with most sport, FI and the culinary uses of pineapple in Italian cuisine. But it is very easy to scroll past these outpourings.
Of course you have your point of view and feelings. But as one of the relatively few women on here I really don't think you would be mowed down.
From what I've seen, the views and opinions of our female contributors have always been disporportionately welcomed simply because there are so few of you. But putting oneself forward "as a" woman doesn't excuse racism, sexism, general insults and diverting the debate.
It was quite some time after I first started contributing that I revealed I was a woman. And I remember one other poster, who no longer posts, who said that this could not be right because I argued "like a man" which I thought revealing in all sorts of ways that poster may not have intended.
Yes and I think that's my point, only expressed far better by you.
x
I was interviewed recently by an anthropologist (really!) writing a piece on political betting - I think he's talked to several of you. One of his points was that PB *appeared* to be very, very male (he went to the meet-up and says it was 100% male). I told him that Cyclefree, Heathener and Beibherli were all female (as far as I was aware, who knows how everyone may be transitioning), and he was quite surprised. So I think the comment
"About three months ago I realised that the only way for a female to exist on here, in my opinion, is to fight.
I think it's really sad but this is a mostly male and often aggressive bear pit of a place."
is more true than is comfortable. We should probably all rein in the testosterone a bit.
Heated debate can stem as much from conviction as from testicles. I mean a lot should be reined in ideally. Trolling and confrontation are achieved through sneaky means as well as bloodied fists.
Western diplomats say reopening Ukrainian ports is not a practical option for at least six months. A Ukrainian one is blunter: “There is no point in escorting merchant ships if nobody is prepared to shoot back at Russia. The only answer is for us to defeat Russia.”
JJ, who is mostly it seems to me a decent person, claimed yesterday that homophobia and racism were far reduced yesterday. He cited examples of footballers and others harassed in the past for being gay and that now the situation is much better.
Well, yesterday's leading trend on twitter in the whole world was the hashtag 'we are all idrissa' in support of 's PSGSenegalese star Idrissa Gueye who refused to wear a shirt carrying the rainbow symbol.
Homosexuality is illegal in Senegal and in Qatar, who own PSG.
Two compatriots of Gueye who play in Britain tweeted in support of him.
I am afraid I see little or nothing in this country at the moment to damp down the culture wars and hatred being, I believe, deliberately now fanned into flame by Boris Johnson's appeal to a certain kind of red wall demographic.
It's godawful.
The mistake you're making is in thinking Twitter is representative of anything.
Which is strange. Cos something someone said on Twitter is often used as an argument clincher.
I do not wish to speculate about the MP being investigated for alleged sexual offences.
But am I the only one a touch troubled by the order to stay away from Parliament during the investigation?
If there is a concern about interference with witnesses or evidence, that is one thing. But in the absence of that, is this really acceptable? First, it risks identifying the person or putting others under unfair suspicion. Second, why should someone who has not even been charged be prevented from doing a key part of their job? A person is innocent until proven guilty. Keeping someone away even when not charged is implying that they are somehow in the wrong and when they do come back, assuming no charge, that will hang round them.
I realise there are other considerations. But lots of people remain free while investigations carry on and we do not expect them to stop working and be shunned by society.
I do worry that we are in danger of denuding the very precious idea of "innocence until proven guilty" of any real meaning and creating a whole new set of unfairnesses. It is precisely because sexual offence allegations are so serious that we should be wary of a "judgment first, trial later" approach.
Or am I alone in worrying about this?
You are not alone - I find it very troubling indeed. Until charged everything should be done to avoid jigsaw identification. And he has a job to do to represent his constituents. Does he get to vote? Take part in committees? I can understand that there might be an issue if the person accusing him is also at parliament, but this is not the way to handle it.
Innocent until proven guilty.
I am pretty sure that if a teacher was under suspicion like this he would have been sacked by now.!!
Certainly suspended. Analagous? No; as pointed out elsewhere there's constituency work to be done, which I suppose can be done elsewhere, and committee work .... cf. maternity leave.
JJ, who is mostly it seems to me a decent person, claimed yesterday that homophobia and racism were far reduced yesterday. He cited examples of footballers and others harassed in the past for being gay and that now the situation is much better.
Well, yesterday's leading trend on twitter in the whole world was the hashtag 'we are all idrissa' in support of 's PSGSenegalese star Idrissa Gueye who refused to wear a shirt carrying the rainbow symbol.
Homosexuality is illegal in Senegal and in Qatar, who own PSG.
Two compatriots of Gueye who play in Britain tweeted in support of him.
I am afraid I see little or nothing in this country at the moment to damp down the culture wars and hatred being, I believe, deliberately now fanned into flame by Boris Johnson's appeal to a certain kind of red wall demographic.
It's godawful.
What has the fact gay marriage is not legal in most of Africa and homosexuality is illegal in much of North Africa and the Middle East got to do with the UK given both main parties want to keep gay marriage legal now?
Former Labour MP Mike Hill conducted a campaign of sexual harassment and bullying against Woman A over a 16-month period in 2017 and 2018.
A woman who was repeatedly sexually assaulted and harassed by a former Labour MP has been awarded nearly £435,000 by an employment tribunal in a ruling that could have major implications for outstanding claims against MPs.
A central London employment tribunal on Wednesday ordered the former member for Hartlepool Mike Hill to pay £434,435 to Woman A.
She was victimised after spurning Hill’s advances, an employment tribunal ruled in July. He was found to have climbed into the victim’s bed and sexually assaulted her in his parliamentary office.
The case is the first public compensation payment ordered against an MP for sexual assault, and is expected to prompt other alleged victims in parliament to take action through the civil courts.
I do not wish to speculate about the MP being investigated for alleged sexual offences.
But am I the only one a touch troubled by the order to stay away from Parliament during the investigation?
If there is a concern about interference with witnesses or evidence, that is one thing. But in the absence of that, is this really acceptable? First, it risks identifying the person or putting others under unfair suspicion. Second, why should someone who has not even been charged be prevented from doing a key part of their job? A person is innocent until proven guilty. Keeping someone away even when not charged is implying that they are somehow in the wrong and when they do come back, assuming no charge, that will hang round them.
I realise there are other considerations. But lots of people remain free while investigations carry on and we do not expect them to stop working and be shunned by society.
I do worry that we are in danger of denuding the very precious idea of "innocence until proven guilty" of any real meaning and creating a whole new set of unfairnesses. It is precisely because sexual offence allegations are so serious that we should be wary of a "judgment first, trial later" approach.
Or am I alone in worrying about this?
You are not alone - I find it very troubling indeed. Until charged everything should be done to avoid jigsaw identification. And he has a job to do to represent his constituents. Does he get to vote? Take part in committees? I can understand that there might be an issue if the person accusing him is also at parliament, but this is not the way to handle it.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Anybody who cares to find out knows who the fucker is anyway so it makes no difference.
That's not the issue which concerns me. But the demand that the MP should be prevented from doing a key part of their job despite not being charged.
Let me give another example. Starmer has said that he will resign his position if given an FPN. He is currently under police investigation. Should he be required to stop doing part of his job?
Obvious retort: Covid rules are less serious than sex offences. Sure - but at this stage, all we have are allegations and hey presto an MP is effectively hobbled from doing their job.
Not sure I agree with you on this. If a teacher faces a credible allegation of (sexual) assault by a student, s/he will normally be suspended on full pay until the case is resolved; and of course s/he may well be innocent. But just in case the allegation is true, the school/governors have little choice but to keep said teacher away from students, don't they?
Yes - but in a school there are safeguarding obligations. And I did say that if there was a risk of contaminating evidence or attacking witnesses, then that might be a reason for keeping someone away. So there are times when suspending someone may be the right thing to do.
But is it right here? I fear that it is being done simply to deal with perception issues or to be seen to be doing something with little regard given to the accused person's rights. These issues are always a balancing act. I wonder how much careful thought has been given to the various considerations.
I would imagine a lot of thought has been given; the Speaker receives wise counsel from various aides. Let's imagine the evidence against this MP is fairly compelling (too early for us to know, I recognise). You mention safeguarding in schools; does the Speaker not have a similar obligation to protect female staff (of whom there are hundreds, I don't mean MPs) in the HoC from a potentially predatory male?
If the evidence is compelling they must charge immediately. Only the police can make that determination in conjunction with the CPS. Until they charge nobody can know enough to make a fair decision on this. The police/CPS need to get the f on with it
The police first received the allegations in January 2020, its taken them 2 1/2 years to get this far. It makes you wonder what evidence there is.
I would gently suggest your posts are hardly conducive to a less confrontational society
That has absolutely nothing to do with my post
I would suggest it has a great deal to do with the constant theme of your posts
Big G lay off. I post left-of-centre and sometimes alternative views. You don't have to agree with them but of course they are going to 'seem' abrasive to someone of a right wing persuasion.
Is this a new even more alarming trend? That the Conservatives are getting so rattled that they now want to clamp down on free speech? On all views contrary to their increasingly Nasty Party? Certainly that would seem to be Priti Patel's wish.
I don't agree with everything you say but I do think you get unwarranted stick on here. VPNgate, for example. It has more than a whiff of misogyny in my opinion.
I salute your indefatigability!
To be fair, she also gives out unwarranted stick. I see little behaviour towards her that she does not give out herself.
About three months ago I realised that the only way for a female to exist on here, in my opinion, is to fight.
I think it's really sad but this is a mostly male and often aggressive bear pit of a place.
You might ask, why do I bother? Well it's because politics really interests me and I like betting on it, and offering betting tips on it.
I wish I could be a lot more gentle, which is what I'm like in real life, but I would be mowed down on here I'm afraid.
No need to reply to this please. It's a point of view. You may not agree with it but it won't change (in this instance) how I feel.
It really is not necessary to fight to survive on here. I have been here for quite some time and have not felt it necessary to get into personal fights with others. And, frankly, personal disputes are to my mind exceedingly tedious - along with most sport, FI and the culinary uses of pineapple in Italian cuisine. But it is very easy to scroll past these outpourings.
Of course you have your point of view and feelings. But as one of the relatively few women on here I really don't think you would be mowed down.
From what I've seen, the views and opinions of our female contributors have always been disporportionately welcomed simply because there are so few of you. But putting oneself forward "as a" woman doesn't excuse racism, sexism, general insults and diverting the debate.
It was quite some time after I first started contributing that I revealed I was a woman. And I remember one other poster, who no longer posts, who said that this could not be right because I argued "like a man" which I thought revealing in all sorts of ways that poster may not have intended.
Yes and I think that's my point, only expressed far better by you.
x
I was interviewed recently by an anthropologist (really!) writing a piece on political betting - I think he's talked to several of you. One of his points was that PB *appeared* to be very, very male (he went to the meet-up and says it was 100% male). I told him that Cyclefree, Heathener and Beibherli were all female (as far as I was aware, who knows how everyone may be transitioning), and he was quite surprised. So I think the comment
"About three months ago I realised that the only way for a female to exist on here, in my opinion, is to fight.
I think it's really sad but this is a mostly male and often aggressive bear pit of a place."
is more true than is comfortable. We should probably all rein in the testosterone a bit.
I think Moonrabbit and Pigeon are also female (?)
I don't think there is a neat correlation on here between the sex of posters and their levels of aggression.
Anyway, on a happier note, if I have achieved nothing else today, I have used the word 'wanglable' in a work email. (i.e. something you can wangle - referring in this case to trying to wangle a slot in people's diaries: once you get past the bits which are happily blank, you have to look in more detail at the bits which are full but, with knowledge of context, you know those slots might not command 100% commitment.)
So: wanglable. Something you can wangle is wanglable. My gift to you all this morning.
I would gently suggest your posts are hardly conducive to a less confrontational society
That has absolutely nothing to do with my post
I would suggest it has a great deal to do with the constant theme of your posts
Big G lay off. I post left-of-centre and sometimes alternative views. You don't have to agree with them but of course they are going to 'seem' abrasive to someone of a right wing persuasion.
Is this a new even more alarming trend? That the Conservatives are getting so rattled that they now want to clamp down on free speech? On all views contrary to their increasingly Nasty Party? Certainly that would seem to be Priti Patel's wish.
I don't agree with everything you say but I do think you get unwarranted stick on here. VPNgate, for example. It has more than a whiff of misogyny in my opinion.
I salute your indefatigability!
To be fair, she also gives out unwarranted stick. I see little behaviour towards her that she does not give out herself.
About three months ago I realised that the only way for a female to exist on here, in my opinion, is to fight.
I think it's really sad but this is a mostly male and often aggressive bear pit of a place.
You might ask, why do I bother? Well it's because politics really interests me and I like betting on it, and offering betting tips on it.
I wish I could be a lot more gentle, which is what I'm like in real life, but I would be mowed down on here I'm afraid.
No need to reply to this please. It's a point of view. You may not agree with it but it won't change (in this instance) how I feel.
It really is not necessary to fight to survive on here. I have been here for quite some time and have not felt it necessary to get into personal fights with others. And, frankly, personal disputes are to my mind exceedingly tedious - along with most sport, FI and the culinary uses of pineapple in Italian cuisine. But it is very easy to scroll past these outpourings.
Of course you have your point of view and feelings. But as one of the relatively few women on here I really don't think you would be mowed down.
From what I've seen, the views and opinions of our female contributors have always been disporportionately welcomed simply because there are so few of you. But putting oneself forward "as a" woman doesn't excuse racism, sexism, general insults and diverting the debate.
It was quite some time after I first started contributing that I revealed I was a woman. And I remember one other poster, who no longer posts, who said that this could not be right because I argued "like a man" which I thought revealing in all sorts of ways that poster may not have intended.
Yes and I think that's my point, only expressed far better by you.
x
I was interviewed recently by an anthropologist (really!) writing a piece on political betting - I think he's talked to several of you. One of his points was that PB *appeared* to be very, very male (he went to the meet-up and says it was 100% male). I told him that Cyclefree, Heathener and Beibherli were all female (as far as I was aware, who knows how everyone may be transitioning), and he was quite surprised. So I think the comment
"About three months ago I realised that the only way for a female to exist on here, in my opinion, is to fight.
I think it's really sad but this is a mostly male and often aggressive bear pit of a place."
is more true than is comfortable. We should probably all rein in the testosterone a bit.
This is probably the most civilised forum I’ve ever encountered on the internet. It is self policing. And when it isn’t it is well moderated (and I speak as someone who has been banned a few times - on reflection nearly all of them were justified)
It is male because people who are geekily obsessed with politics - to the point of betting on Welsh Senedd bye-elections - tend to be male; that is all
There is never an excuse for stealing and breaking the law, ............
Boris and dozens of others working in Downing say Hi .... and will probably wave at us again soon.
They were fined for it, not let off
If he remains in post he has been "let off". If he had any honour, which we know he has none, he would have resigned immediately he received the FPM. He has no shame, which is why he should never have been made leader of the Conservative Party.
I would gently suggest your posts are hardly conducive to a less confrontational society
That has absolutely nothing to do with my post
I would suggest it has a great deal to do with the constant theme of your posts
Big G lay off. I post left-of-centre and sometimes alternative views. You don't have to agree with them but of course they are going to 'seem' abrasive to someone of a right wing persuasion.
Is this a new even more alarming trend? That the Conservatives are getting so rattled that they now want to clamp down on free speech? On all views contrary to their increasingly Nasty Party? Certainly that would seem to be Priti Patel's wish.
I don't agree with everything you say but I do think you get unwarranted stick on here. VPNgate, for example. It has more than a whiff of misogyny in my opinion.
I salute your indefatigability!
To be fair, she also gives out unwarranted stick. I see little behaviour towards her that she does not give out herself.
About three months ago I realised that the only way for a female to exist on here, in my opinion, is to fight.
I think it's really sad but this is a mostly male and often aggressive bear pit of a place.
You might ask, why do I bother? Well it's because politics really interests me and I like betting on it, and offering betting tips on it.
I wish I could be a lot more gentle, which is what I'm like in real life, but I would be mowed down on here I'm afraid.
No need to reply to this please. It's a point of view. You may not agree with it but it won't change (in this instance) how I feel.
It really is not necessary to fight to survive on here. I have been here for quite some time and have not felt it necessary to get into personal fights with others. And, frankly, personal disputes are to my mind exceedingly tedious - along with most sport, FI and the culinary uses of pineapple in Italian cuisine. But it is very easy to scroll past these outpourings.
I think Eleanor Roosevelt summed it up best:
Great Minds Discuss Ideas. Average Minds Discuss Events. Small Minds Discuss People.
I do not wish to speculate about the MP being investigated for alleged sexual offences.
But am I the only one a touch troubled by the order to stay away from Parliament during the investigation?
If there is a concern about interference with witnesses or evidence, that is one thing. But in the absence of that, is this really acceptable? First, it risks identifying the person or putting others under unfair suspicion. Second, why should someone who has not even been charged be prevented from doing a key part of their job? A person is innocent until proven guilty. Keeping someone away even when not charged is implying that they are somehow in the wrong and when they do come back, assuming no charge, that will hang round them.
I realise there are other considerations. But lots of people remain free while investigations carry on and we do not expect them to stop working and be shunned by society.
I do worry that we are in danger of denuding the very precious idea of "innocence until proven guilty" of any real meaning and creating a whole new set of unfairnesses. It is precisely because sexual offence allegations are so serious that we should be wary of a "judgment first, trial later" approach.
Or am I alone in worrying about this?
You are not alone - I find it very troubling indeed. Until charged everything should be done to avoid jigsaw identification. And he has a job to do to represent his constituents. Does he get to vote? Take part in committees? I can understand that there might be an issue if the person accusing him is also at parliament, but this is not the way to handle it.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Innocent until proven guilty is true, but glib. Taken to its logical extreme, nobody would ever be remanded in custody until their trial has concluded. Not sure the GBP would be happy about that - unconvicted but suspected terrorist bombers released on bail?
In the case of the MP, however, the issue is that the police/CPS should get on with it and decide whether to prosecute. If they do, then I think it's legitimate to exclude him from the HoC.
That seems about right to me. If he's merely under possible suspicion, on the basis of who knows what evidence, I think he should proceed as normal. If he's charged, then I think he should stop attending, and there's a reasonable question whether the voters of X are well-served if he's excluded for months or perhaps a year before the case comes to trial. On the other hand, as he's presumed innocent unless proved otherwise, is it fair to ask him to give up his career? In practice, I think he'd probably feel it was impossible to carry on in that situation, but if acquitted should perhaps be entitled to some sort of compensation?
Telling the police to get on with it has its difficulties too. What if they need to make a crucial interview before deciding, and the interviewee is unavailable till next month? Perhaps they shouldn't even announce arrests until a charge is laid - after all, what public benefit is there to knowing that unknown person X has been accused of something?
I do not wish to speculate about the MP being investigated for alleged sexual offences.
But am I the only one a touch troubled by the order to stay away from Parliament during the investigation?
If there is a concern about interference with witnesses or evidence, that is one thing. But in the absence of that, is this really acceptable? First, it risks identifying the person or putting others under unfair suspicion. Second, why should someone who has not even been charged be prevented from doing a key part of their job? A person is innocent until proven guilty. Keeping someone away even when not charged is implying that they are somehow in the wrong and when they do come back, assuming no charge, that will hang round them.
I realise there are other considerations. But lots of people remain free while investigations carry on and we do not expect them to stop working and be shunned by society.
I do worry that we are in danger of denuding the very precious idea of "innocence until proven guilty" of any real meaning and creating a whole new set of unfairnesses. It is precisely because sexual offence allegations are so serious that we should be wary of a "judgment first, trial later" approach.
Or am I alone in worrying about this?
You are not alone - I find it very troubling indeed. Until charged everything should be done to avoid jigsaw identification. And he has a job to do to represent his constituents. Does he get to vote? Take part in committees? I can understand that there might be an issue if the person accusing him is also at parliament, but this is not the way to handle it.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Anybody who cares to find out knows who the fucker is anyway so it makes no difference.
That's not the issue which concerns me. But the demand that the MP should be prevented from doing a key part of their job despite not being charged.
Let me give another example. Starmer has said that he will resign his position if given an FPN. He is currently under police investigation. Should he be required to stop doing part of his job?
Obvious retort: Covid rules are less serious than sex offences. Sure - but at this stage, all we have are allegations and hey presto an MP is effectively hobbled from doing their job.
Not sure I agree with you on this. If a teacher faces a credible allegation of (sexual) assault by a student, s/he will normally be suspended on full pay until the case is resolved; and of course s/he may well be innocent. But just in case the allegation is true, the school/governors have little choice but to keep said teacher away from students, don't they?
Yes - but in a school there are safeguarding obligations. And I did say that if there was a risk of contaminating evidence or attacking witnesses, then that might be a reason for keeping someone away. So there are times when suspending someone may be the right thing to do.
But is it right here? I fear that it is being done simply to deal with perception issues or to be seen to be doing something with little regard given to the accused person's rights. These issues are always a balancing act. I wonder how much careful thought has been given to the various considerations.
I would imagine a lot of thought has been given; the Speaker receives wise counsel from various aides. Let's imagine the evidence against this MP is fairly compelling (too early for us to know, I recognise). You mention safeguarding in schools; does the Speaker not have a similar obligation to protect female staff (of whom there are hundreds, I don't mean MPs) in the HoC from a potentially predatory male?
If the evidence is compelling they must charge immediately. Only the police can make that determination in conjunction with the CPS. Until they charge nobody can know enough to make a fair decision on this. The police/CPS need to get the f on with it
The police first received the allegations in January 2020, its taken them 2 1/2 years to get this far. It makes you wonder what evidence there is.
It's certainly a worrying amount of time to be piddling about if evidence of this person being a danger to women is compelling
A question for all you Brits in Britain. How many of you are participating in Platinum Jubilee events? And how many of you are going to avoid them or even go abroad on holiday? I am curious to know!
I've posted something along these lines before. In my neck of the woods - post-industrial West Yorks, the flat eastern bit of the county - there is a noticeable lack of interest in these big national, often Royalty-related, events. No-one seems to give a damn. No street parties, no big events. Nothing.
I do remember ever so slightly having a party at my nursery for Charles and Di's wedding. And I'm told I was conceived after my parents had been at a Silver Jubilee bash in '77. So perhaps it wasn't always thus.
It's not that there's a burning republicanism here, and people certainly have great affection for Lizzy, I think it's just a general sense that all the Royal pageantry stuff, that traditional view of Britain, England, it represents is just so remote from people's lives and experience here.
I imagine that the tiny villages in rural, southern England, the Home Counties and the like, will pay more attention. The world that I think of as a Radio 4 land, where I imagine people play cricket and keep horses and read the Telegraph and work in the city and publishing and are architects and senior civil servants (no doubt a stereotype in itself) just feels a million miles away from how people live in Knottingley, Featherstone, Pontefract and Castleford.
I suspect it'll be more keenly observed in the western, hillier, more rural parts of W. Yorks.
I thought the 75th Anniversary of VE Day would be more celebrated in these parts but that was a damp squib too. But we were just emerging from lockdown 1 and everyone was still very jittery.
48% of Conservative voters have plans to celebrate the Jubilee (eg street parties, beacon lighting, attending the Buckingham Palace concert etc) but only 28% of Labour voters have plans
A question for all you Brits in Britain. How many of you are participating in Platinum Jubilee events? And how many of you are going to avoid them or even go abroad on holiday? I am curious to know!
I've posted something along these lines before. In my neck of the woods - post-industrial West Yorks, the flat eastern bit of the county - there is a noticeable lack of interest in these big national, often Royalty-related, events. No-one seems to give a damn. No street parties, no big events. Nothing.
I do remember ever so slightly having a party at my nursery for Charles and Di's wedding. And I'm told I was conceived after my parents had been at a Silver Jubilee bash in '77. So perhaps it wasn't always thus.
It's not that there's a burning republicanism here, and people certainly have great affection for Lizzy, I think it's just a general sense that all the Royal pageantry stuff, that traditional view of Britain, England, it represents is just so remote from people's lives and experience here.
I imagine that the tiny villages in rural, southern England, the Home Counties and the like, will pay more attention. The world that I think of as a Radio 4 land, where I imagine people play cricket and keep horses and read the Telegraph and work in the city and publishing and are architects and senior civil servants (no doubt a stereotype in itself) just feels a million miles away from how people live in Knottingley, Featherstone, Pontefract and Castleford.
I suspect it'll be more keenly observed in the western, hillier, more rural parts of W. Yorks.
I thought the 75th Anniversary of VE Day would be more celebrated in these parts but that was a damp squib too. But we were just emerging from lockdown 1 and everyone was still very jittery.
I thought there was quite a thing about playing cricket in Yorkshire. Even the industrial bits.
Not in my bit, though there is a Knottingley Town Cricket Club, but I don't know anyone involved with it. It's all football and rugby league. Only ever played cricket at high school in PE, and that was probably about 10 times in 5 years. Cricket seems to be more prevalent in the west of the county, Cleckhuddersfax land. Influx of Pakistanis over there has probably helped it to be more enduring.
Funnily enough I was speaking to someone the other day from west of Leeds who's involved in her local cricket club and she said kids just aren't getting into it now - not enough instant gratification in a time of games consoles, she reckons. They struggle to get umpires for matches too.
Interesting. Hadn't thought of that before. Cricket as a Pennine thing. True in Lancashire too. The flatter it gets, the less cricket. Mm.
"Cleckhuddersfax land", eyeergh. Not aware of much going on in the town, but one of two of the villages further up into the headwaters seem to be bunting and flagging up quite aggressively like something is afoot.
JJ, who is mostly it seems to me a decent person, claimed yesterday that homophobia and racism were far reduced yesterday. He cited examples of footballers and others harassed in the past for being gay and that now the situation is much better.
Well, yesterday's leading trend on twitter in the whole world was the hashtag 'we are all idrissa' in support of 's PSGSenegalese star Idrissa Gueye who refused to wear a shirt carrying the rainbow symbol.
Homosexuality is illegal in Senegal and in Qatar, who own PSG.
Two compatriots of Gueye who play in Britain tweeted in support of him.
I am afraid I see little or nothing in this country at the moment to damp down the culture wars and hatred being, I believe, deliberately now fanned into flame by Boris Johnson's appeal to a certain kind of red wall demographic.
It's godawful.
So your bewailing of homophobia in Britain is based upon the tweeting of two Senegalese footballers ?
FFS.
This is the kind of stupid response that is, presumably, intended to wind me up.
Any comment that begins, unironically, “I am a seer” is going to get some pushback because it is flatulently pompous
Unless, of course, you are trying to wind people up…
Funnily enough, when I saw a post starting with "I am a seer", I assumed it was going to be from you, Leon.
Quite possibly, but I would have been at least half-joking, if so
Anyway, good morning to all, bots, trolls, misogynist Cryptoids and Surrey based Buddhists alike, from a cool but sunny Meteora. Quite a place
Are you anywhere near your 90 day limit within 180 days yet to travel within the EU? Hope you are keeping track. You don't want to be deported and banned from travelling there.
JJ, who is mostly it seems to me a decent person, claimed yesterday that homophobia and racism were far reduced yesterday. He cited examples of footballers and others harassed in the past for being gay and that now the situation is much better.
Well, yesterday's leading trend on twitter in the whole world was the hashtag 'we are all idrissa' in support of 's PSGSenegalese star Idrissa Gueye who refused to wear a shirt carrying the rainbow symbol.
Homosexuality is illegal in Senegal and in Qatar, who own PSG.
Two compatriots of Gueye who play in Britain tweeted in support of him.
I am afraid I see little or nothing in this country at the moment to damp down the culture wars and hatred being, I believe, deliberately now fanned into flame by Boris Johnson's appeal to a certain kind of red wall demographic.
It's godawful.
So your bewailing of homophobia in Britain is based upon the tweeting of two Senegalese footballers ?
FFS.
This is the kind of stupid response that is, presumably, intended to wind me up.
Any comment that begins, unironically, “I am a seer” is going to get some pushback because it is flatulently pompous
Unless, of course, you are trying to wind people up…
Funnily enough, when I saw a post starting with "I am a seer", I assumed it was going to be from you, Leon.
Quite possibly, but I would have been at least half-joking, if so
Anyway, good morning to all, bots, trolls, misogynist Cryptoids and Surrey based Buddhists alike, from a cool but sunny Meteora. Quite a place
I think I was very mean to you the other day @Leon, for which I apologise. Great pictures.
JJ, who is mostly it seems to me a decent person, claimed yesterday that homophobia and racism were far reduced yesterday. He cited examples of footballers and others harassed in the past for being gay and that now the situation is much better.
Well, yesterday's leading trend on twitter in the whole world was the hashtag 'we are all idrissa' in support of 's PSGSenegalese star Idrissa Gueye who refused to wear a shirt carrying the rainbow symbol.
Homosexuality is illegal in Senegal and in Qatar, who own PSG.
Two compatriots of Gueye who play in Britain tweeted in support of him.
I am afraid I see little or nothing in this country at the moment to damp down the culture wars and hatred being, I believe, deliberately now fanned into flame by Boris Johnson's appeal to a certain kind of red wall demographic.
It's godawful.
So your bewailing of homophobia in Britain is based upon the tweeting of two Senegalese footballers ?
FFS.
This is the kind of stupid response that is, presumably, intended to wind me up.
Any comment that begins, unironically, “I am a seer” is going to get some pushback because it is flatulently pompous
Unless, of course, you are trying to wind people up…
Funnily enough, when I saw a post starting with "I am a seer", I assumed it was going to be from you, Leon.
Quite possibly, but I would have been at least half-joking, if so
Anyway, good morning to all, bots, trolls, misogynist Cryptoids and Surrey based Buddhists alike, from a cool but sunny Meteora. Quite a place
Are you anywhere near your 90 day limit within 180 days yet to travel within the EU? Hope you are keeping track. You don't want to be deported and banned from travelling there.
Seeing as I’ve spent most of the last month in the USA and Turkey, no
I would gently suggest your posts are hardly conducive to a less confrontational society
That has absolutely nothing to do with my post
I would suggest it has a great deal to do with the constant theme of your posts
Big G lay off. I post left-of-centre and sometimes alternative views. You don't have to agree with them but of course they are going to 'seem' abrasive to someone of a right wing persuasion.
Is this a new even more alarming trend? That the Conservatives are getting so rattled that they now want to clamp down on free speech? On all views contrary to their increasingly Nasty Party? Certainly that would seem to be Priti Patel's wish.
I don't agree with everything you say but I do think you get unwarranted stick on here. VPNgate, for example. It has more than a whiff of misogyny in my opinion.
I salute your indefatigability!
To be fair, she also gives out unwarranted stick. I see little behaviour towards her that she does not give out herself.
About three months ago I realised that the only way for a female to exist on here, in my opinion, is to fight.
I think it's really sad but this is a mostly male and often aggressive bear pit of a place.
You might ask, why do I bother? Well it's because politics really interests me and I like betting on it, and offering betting tips on it.
I wish I could be a lot more gentle, which is what I'm like in real life, but I would be mowed down on here I'm afraid.
No need to reply to this please. It's a point of view. You may not agree with it but it won't change (in this instance) how I feel.
It really is not necessary to fight to survive on here. I have been here for quite some time and have not felt it necessary to get into personal fights with others. And, frankly, personal disputes are to my mind exceedingly tedious - along with most sport, FI and the culinary uses of pineapple in Italian cuisine. But it is very easy to scroll past these outpourings.
Of course you have your point of view and feelings. But as one of the relatively few women on here I really don't think you would be mowed down.
From what I've seen, the views and opinions of our female contributors have always been disporportionately welcomed simply because there are so few of you. But putting oneself forward "as a" woman doesn't excuse racism, sexism, general insults and diverting the debate.
It was quite some time after I first started contributing that I revealed I was a woman. And I remember one other poster, who no longer posts, who said that this could not be right because I argued "like a man" which I thought revealing in all sorts of ways that poster may not have intended.
Yes and I think that's my point, only expressed far better by you.
x
I was interviewed recently by an anthropologist (really!) writing a piece on political betting - I think he's talked to several of you. One of his points was that PB *appeared* to be very, very male (he went to the meet-up and says it was 100% male). I told him that Cyclefree, Heathener and Beibherli were all female (as far as I was aware, who knows how everyone may be transitioning), and he was quite surprised. So I think the comment
"About three months ago I realised that the only way for a female to exist on here, in my opinion, is to fight.
I think it's really sad but this is a mostly male and often aggressive bear pit of a place."
is more true than is comfortable. We should probably all rein in the testosterone a bit.
But Nick, I think its more about who wants to be in the club. Think model railways. Not exclusively male, but the vast majority. The strange confluence of betting (a largely male past-time), and political wonkery (not as male, but online obsessives certainly skew male) and you get what we have here.
There are some nasty posters out there who post things they would never say in person. Its like the road rage idiots who feel safe to drive aggressively, swear and rage in their car, but would not do so in the pub.
There are lots of others on here who are usually polite, and crucially interesting, and with different view points. If you want to hear your opinions coming back at you find your gang on twitter, like the swamp that is iSAGE. If you want to hear from people with different views then PB is great. And try not to take things too seriously. There are not many rules so its quite easy.
I do not wish to speculate about the MP being investigated for alleged sexual offences.
But am I the only one a touch troubled by the order to stay away from Parliament during the investigation?
If there is a concern about interference with witnesses or evidence, that is one thing. But in the absence of that, is this really acceptable? First, it risks identifying the person or putting others under unfair suspicion. Second, why should someone who has not even been charged be prevented from doing a key part of their job? A person is innocent until proven guilty. Keeping someone away even when not charged is implying that they are somehow in the wrong and when they do come back, assuming no charge, that will hang round them.
I realise there are other considerations. But lots of people remain free while investigations carry on and we do not expect them to stop working and be shunned by society.
I do worry that we are in danger of denuding the very precious idea of "innocence until proven guilty" of any real meaning and creating a whole new set of unfairnesses. It is precisely because sexual offence allegations are so serious that we should be wary of a "judgment first, trial later" approach.
Or am I alone in worrying about this?
You are not alone - I find it very troubling indeed. Until charged everything should be done to avoid jigsaw identification. And he has a job to do to represent his constituents. Does he get to vote? Take part in committees? I can understand that there might be an issue if the person accusing him is also at parliament, but this is not the way to handle it.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Anybody who cares to find out knows who the fucker is anyway so it makes no difference.
That's not the issue which concerns me. But the demand that the MP should be prevented from doing a key part of their job despite not being charged.
Let me give another example. Starmer has said that he will resign his position if given an FPN. He is currently under police investigation. Should he be required to stop doing part of his job?
Obvious retort: Covid rules are less serious than sex offences. Sure - but at this stage, all we have are allegations and hey presto an MP is effectively hobbled from doing their job.
Not sure I agree with you on this. If a teacher faces a credible allegation of (sexual) assault by a student, s/he will normally be suspended on full pay until the case is resolved; and of course s/he may well be innocent. But just in case the allegation is true, the school/governors have little choice but to keep said teacher away from students, don't they?
Yes - but in a school there are safeguarding obligations. And I did say that if there was a risk of contaminating evidence or attacking witnesses, then that might be a reason for keeping someone away. So there are times when suspending someone may be the right thing to do.
But is it right here? I fear that it is being done simply to deal with perception issues or to be seen to be doing something with little regard given to the accused person's rights. These issues are always a balancing act. I wonder how much careful thought has been given to the various considerations.
I would imagine a lot of thought has been given; the Speaker receives wise counsel from various aides. Let's imagine the evidence against this MP is fairly compelling (too early for us to know, I recognise). You mention safeguarding in schools; does the Speaker not have a similar obligation to protect female staff (of whom there are hundreds, I don't mean MPs) in the HoC from a potentially predatory male?
If the evidence is compelling they must charge immediately. Only the police can make that determination in conjunction with the CPS. Until they charge nobody can know enough to make a fair decision on this. The police/CPS need to get the f on with it
The police first received the allegations in January 2020, its taken them 2 1/2 years to get this far. It makes you wonder what evidence there is.
It's certainly a worrying amount of time to be piddling about if evidence of this person being a danger to women is compelling
I would gently suggest your posts are hardly conducive to a less confrontational society
That has absolutely nothing to do with my post
I would suggest it has a great deal to do with the constant theme of your posts
Big G lay off. I post left-of-centre and sometimes alternative views. You don't have to agree with them but of course they are going to 'seem' abrasive to someone of a right wing persuasion.
Is this a new even more alarming trend? That the Conservatives are getting so rattled that they now want to clamp down on free speech? On all views contrary to their increasingly Nasty Party? Certainly that would seem to be Priti Patel's wish.
I don't agree with everything you say but I do think you get unwarranted stick on here. VPNgate, for example. It has more than a whiff of misogyny in my opinion.
I salute your indefatigability!
To be fair, she also gives out unwarranted stick. I see little behaviour towards her that she does not give out herself.
About three months ago I realised that the only way for a female to exist on here, in my opinion, is to fight.
I think it's really sad but this is a mostly male and often aggressive bear pit of a place.
You might ask, why do I bother? Well it's because politics really interests me and I like betting on it, and offering betting tips on it.
I wish I could be a lot more gentle, which is what I'm like in real life, but I would be mowed down on here I'm afraid.
No need to reply to this please. It's a point of view. You may not agree with it but it won't change (in this instance) how I feel.
It really is not necessary to fight to survive on here. I have been here for quite some time and have not felt it necessary to get into personal fights with others. And, frankly, personal disputes are to my mind exceedingly tedious - along with most sport, FI and the culinary uses of pineapple in Italian cuisine. But it is very easy to scroll past these outpourings.
Of course you have your point of view and feelings. But as one of the relatively few women on here I really don't think you would be mowed down.
From what I've seen, the views and opinions of our female contributors have always been disporportionately welcomed simply because there are so few of you. But putting oneself forward "as a" woman doesn't excuse racism, sexism, general insults and diverting the debate.
It was quite some time after I first started contributing that I revealed I was a woman. And I remember one other poster, who no longer posts, who said that this could not be right because I argued "like a man" which I thought revealing in all sorts of ways that poster may not have intended.
Yes and I think that's my point, only expressed far better by you.
x
I was interviewed recently by an anthropologist (really!) writing a piece on political betting - I think he's talked to several of you. One of his points was that PB *appeared* to be very, very male (he went to the meet-up and says it was 100% male). I told him that Cyclefree, Heathener and Beibherli were all female (as far as I was aware, who knows how everyone may be transitioning), and he was quite surprised. So I think the comment
"About three months ago I realised that the only way for a female to exist on here, in my opinion, is to fight.
I think it's really sad but this is a mostly male and often aggressive bear pit of a place."
is more true than is comfortable. We should probably all rein in the testosterone a bit.
This is probably the most civilised forum I’ve ever encountered on the internet. It is self policing. And when it isn’t it is well moderated (and I speak as someone who has been banned a few times - on reflection nearly all of them were justified)
It is male because people who are geekily obsessed with politics - to the point of betting on Welsh Senedd bye-elections - tend to be male; that is all
I think it's really sad but this is a mostly male and often aggressive bear pit of a place."
is more true than is comfortable. We should probably all rein in the testosterone a bit.
It's positively decorous compared to other online communities in which I participate. (Cars, motorbikes, football)
The OM forum is particularly vibrant where sincerely intended death threats are not unknown.
It is clear that @NickPalmer has not, say, gone on Twitter and talked about trans issues for 40 seconds. Nor has he ventured onto a UK weather forum and vocally hoped for a mild spell of weather during winter
The internet is designed to create loud and bitter rancour over any issue, the same way an Ibizan disco is meant to be loud. I come on here for blissful tranquility and agreeable chat
I think it's really sad but this is a mostly male and often aggressive bear pit of a place."
is more true than is comfortable. We should probably all rein in the testosterone a bit.
It's positively decorous compared to other online communities in which I participate. (Cars, motorbikes, football)
The OM forum is particularly vibrant where sincerely intended death threats are not unknown.
It is clear that @NickPalmer has not, say, gone on Twitter and talked about trans issues for 40 seconds. Nor has he ventured onto a UK weather forum and vocally hoped for a mild spell of weather during winter
The internet is designed to create loud and bitter rancour over any issue, the same way an Ibizan disco is meant to be loud. I come on here for blissful tranquility and agreeable chat
Nutella is evil. It is supposed to be chocolate and nuts, but contains precious little of either (15% cocoa, 13% nuts). It's mainly sugar and fat. It's hideous, foul-tasting and foul-smelling stuff.
Needless to say, both Mrs J and the little 'un disagree with me on this...
I'm not a fan either - it's not that I find it so unpleasant, but when I was little we had delicious, very cocoa-y chocolate spread. It all went because nutella style spread stormed the market.
I love it, it reminds me of skiing in France. Anything that does that gets a big thumbs up from me.
Comments
I can understand that there might be an issue if the person accusing him is also at parliament, but this is not the way to handle it.
Innocent until proven guilty.
He's a right to pre-charge anonymity. Must be super easy for any colleagues to figure it out by elimination (I'm sure word has got around).
That isn't anonymity to my eyes.
My suspicion is that the devolved administrations, absolved of any responsibility for the economy, will conclude that their longer and tighter restrictions were worth it.
https://www.gov.scot/publications/covid-19-inquiry/pages/terms-of-reference/
After a 2 year investigation the police should have been ready to charge on arrest and interview under caution.
I'm surprised SKS joined calls to 'name'. He's a lawyer. He should know better.
Of course you have your point of view and feelings. But as one of the relatively few women on here I really don't think you would be mowed down.
Well, yesterday's leading trend on twitter in the whole world was the hashtag 'we are all idrissa' in support of 's PSGSenegalese star Idrissa Gueye who refused to wear a shirt carrying the rainbow symbol.
Homosexuality is illegal in Senegal and in Qatar, who own PSG.
Two compatriots of Gueye who play in Britain tweeted in support of him.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61492696
I am afraid I see little or nothing in this country at the moment to damp down the culture wars and hatred being, I believe, deliberately now fanned into flame by Boris Johnson's appeal to a certain kind of red wall demographic.
It's godawful.
I think I have told this story before but I asked one of our workman how stuff was progressing. I was carrying an axe at the time. He commented it was going well but added he always says that to customers carrying an axe.
I do remember ever so slightly having a party at my nursery for Charles and Di's wedding. And I'm told I was conceived after my parents had been at a Silver Jubilee bash in '77. So perhaps it wasn't always thus.
It's not that there's a burning republicanism here, and people certainly have great affection for Lizzy, I think it's just a general sense that all the Royal pageantry stuff, that traditional view of Britain, England, it represents is just so remote from people's lives and experience here.
I imagine that the tiny villages in rural, southern England, the Home Counties and the like, will pay more attention. The world that I think of as a Radio 4 land, where I imagine people play cricket and keep horses and read the Telegraph and work in the city and publishing and are architects and senior civil servants (no doubt a stereotype in itself) just feels a million miles away from how people live in Knottingley, Featherstone, Pontefract and Castleford.
I suspect it'll be more keenly observed in the western, hillier, more rural parts of W. Yorks.
I thought the 75th Anniversary of VE Day would be more celebrated in these parts but that was a damp squib too. But we were just emerging from lockdown 1 and everyone was still very jittery.
I said I waft them away with my stick.
I've never hit anyone with it and nor would I. But it's reasonably long and has a titanium tip. I find people tend to keep their distance
Take same sex marriage. its not that long ago that it was not legal in the UK. It is now.
You seem determined to always see the worst. Maybe you need some gentle exercise and time to pamper yourself.
Innocent until proven guilty seems a very quaint concept in the age of social media.
Where you see a right wing culture war, I see a left wing one designed to divide.
However, on further consideration, I'm not sure the above applies if the accused has only been suspended from Parliament and not from other work as an MP. Would be difficult to do all that and safeguard the anonymity of the accused.
I think politicians in general are at particular risk of the 'judge first' sentiment in your final paragraph. They're a generally unsympathetic bunch, through the eyes of public. Then on top of that there are partisans hoping to make political hay. Various left-wing subreddits I seem to be being shown atm (generally ones attempting to live up to every Conservative stereotype of Labour activists) seem to be practically wetting themselves with glee.
I suppose I don't have the answer to your question, other than it would be nice if everyone left it alone and allowed the police to do their job.
Plus TV will be wall to wall (BBC at least) so it will SEEM like a big event...
Are you up on blocks @Heathener?
There have been certain times in this country when it has, clearly to my eye, headed downhill.
One was in the run up to Brexit and not for the reasons you might think. I saw ghost towns and people disenfranchised. I felt the angst and listened to people who were far, far, removed from the metropolitan successes that the EU brought. I had a vigorous debate with a local Labour leader about it and told him that the country was going to vote to Leave the EU unless Labour got a grip on the problem of the working class British voter who felt left out. He, and they, didn't listen. The rest is history. But I made a lot of money betting the right way. Sigh.
Another was during 1992-7 but it was far less serious than now. With hindsight it was mostly froth and tittle tattle, serious enough in its own way, but the economy was doing really well and Labour inherited a country in rude fiscal health. It just needed a social reset, which TB provided.
And finally the Winter of Discontent which I can just remember and which was AWFUL. Rather like now. People then tried to claim it wasn't as bad as all that: even Sunny Jim tried that line on return from his ill-fated Caribbean jaunt.
If things aren't bad for you then be glad for yourself. But, yep, this country is in the pits right now. Sorry but it's true.
Let me give another example. Starmer has said that he will resign his position if given an FPN. He is currently under police investigation. Should he be required to stop doing part of his job?
Obvious retort: Covid rules are less serious than sex offences. Sure - but at this stage, all we have are allegations and hey presto an MP is effectively hobbled from doing their job.
This is the kind of stupid response that is, presumably, intended to wind me up.
In the case of the MP, however, the issue is that the police/CPS should get on with it and decide whether to prosecute. If they do, then I think it's legitimate to exclude him from the HoC.
George Parker
@GeorgeWParker
·
1h
New: “The next Labour prime minister won’t be Starmer,” says one Tory cabinet minister. “It will be Streeting.”
@FTMag
interview/profile of
@wesstreeting
in Israel: cancer, coming out, Christianity, Christine Keeler..with
@PickardJE
https://twitter.com/GeorgeWParker/status/1527186088485330945
If the police have a case they must charge without delay.
Wonder if Rishi Sunak cleared this line in his speech with Jacob Rees Mogg
https://twitter.com/robertshrimsley/status/1527214704195682304
Anyway, it's a day off so I'm going to do some gardening.
x
Funnily enough I was speaking to someone the other day from west of Leeds who's involved in her local cricket club and she said kids just aren't getting into it now - not enough instant gratification in a time of games consoles, she reckons. They struggle to get umpires for matches too.
Unless, of course, you are trying to wind people up…
I'm not going to repeat them here as we need to move on. But I'm afraid hate of all sorts is being fanned into flame at the moment: racism, homophobia, transphobia, 'lazy' people who work from home, benefit fraudsters etc. etc.
It takes me back to the run up to Jo Cox's murder. We're heading into culture wars again and it's very unpleasant.
But my garden is lovely although bind weed is returning with this sub-tropical climate so needs some tough action.
But the 'fair in a park' type events seem to be all over:
https://www.wakefield.gov.uk/events-and-culture/queen-elizabeth-platinum-jubilee-2022/celebrating-the-queens-platinum-jubilee-at-pontefract-castle-and-coronation-gardens?
I've never seen a street party but thought they were more of an inner urban thing from the old days.
Alf Garnett had one for the Andrew wedding in 1986 but nobody came:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC0IeeVVyG4
Cricket as a Pennine thing.
True in Lancashire too. The flatter it gets, the less cricket. Mm.
https://streetdoctors.org/
He may never be charged.
At this point he is innocent.
After charging is different. At that point the CPS has made a judgement that there is a case to answer, and where appropriate (flight risk, potential for further crime etc) he may be held on remand, or he may not.
The danger we have now is the instant social media race to convict on the flimsiest of evidence. Its not good.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5n7VI0rC8ZA
Lawyer up and 'no comment'. You'll be str8 m8.
But is it right here? I fear that it is being done simply to deal with perception issues or to be seen to be doing something with little regard given to the accused person's rights. These issues are always a balancing act. I wonder how much careful thought has been given to the various considerations.
Anyway, good morning to all, bots, trolls, misogynist Cryptoids and Surrey based Buddhists alike, from a cool but sunny Meteora. Quite a place
They’ve spent some money on the castle recently but I wish they had the funds to properly excavate it and reveal what’s left. It was destroyed by an act of parliament after the civil war. Which is a shame because it was a huge, major fortification. Pontefract would be a very different place if it had survived to be a tourist attraction.
As I say, if you want to look at people who are driving us towards culture wars then look to yourself.
The police/CPS need to get the f on with it
"About three months ago I realised that the only way for a female to exist on here, in my opinion, is to fight.
I think it's really sad but this is a mostly male and often aggressive bear pit of a place."
is more true than is comfortable. We should probably all rein in the testosterone a bit.
I mean a lot should be reined in ideally. Trolling and confrontation are achieved through sneaky means as well as bloodied fists.
Western diplomats say reopening Ukrainian ports is not a practical option for at least six months. A Ukrainian one is blunter: “There is no point in escorting merchant ships if nobody is prepared to shoot back at Russia. The only answer is for us to defeat Russia.”
https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/05/18/how-to-unblock-ukraines-ports-to-relieve-world-hunger
Cos something someone said on Twitter is often used as an argument clincher.
Analagous?
No; as pointed out elsewhere there's constituency work to be done, which I suppose can be done elsewhere, and committee work .... cf. maternity leave.
Former Labour MP Mike Hill conducted a campaign of sexual harassment and bullying against Woman A over a 16-month period in 2017 and 2018.
A woman who was repeatedly sexually assaulted and harassed by a former Labour MP has been awarded nearly £435,000 by an employment tribunal in a ruling that could have major implications for outstanding claims against MPs.
A central London employment tribunal on Wednesday ordered the former member for Hartlepool Mike Hill to pay £434,435 to Woman A.
She was victimised after spurning Hill’s advances, an employment tribunal ruled in July. He was found to have climbed into the victim’s bed and sexually assaulted her in his parliamentary office.
The case is the first public compensation payment ordered against an MP for sexual assault, and is expected to prompt other alleged victims in parliament to take action through the civil courts.
I don't think there is a neat correlation on here between the sex of posters and their levels of aggression.
Anyway, on a happier note, if I have achieved nothing else today, I have used the word 'wanglable' in a work email. (i.e. something you can wangle - referring in this case to trying to wangle a slot in people's diaries: once you get past the bits which are happily blank, you have to look in more detail at the bits which are full but, with knowledge of context, you know those slots might not command 100% commitment.)
So: wanglable. Something you can wangle is wanglable. My gift to you all this morning.
It is male because people who are geekily obsessed with politics - to the point of betting on Welsh Senedd bye-elections - tend to be male; that is all
Great Minds Discuss Ideas.
Average Minds Discuss Events.
Small Minds Discuss People.
Telling the police to get on with it has its difficulties too. What if they need to make a crucial interview before deciding, and the interviewee is unavailable till next month? Perhaps they shouldn't even announce arrests until a charge is laid - after all, what public benefit is there to knowing that unknown person X has been accused of something?
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1526944316542881795?s=20&t=s0pg_dLQ3dIU8_DLzMDPmA
The OM forum is particularly vibrant where sincerely intended death threats are not unknown.
There are some nasty posters out there who post things they would never say in person. Its like the road rage idiots who feel safe to drive aggressively, swear and rage in their car, but would not do so in the pub.
There are lots of others on here who are usually polite, and crucially interesting, and with different view points. If you want to hear your opinions coming back at you find your gang on twitter, like the swamp that is iSAGE.
If you want to hear from people with different views then PB is great. And try not to take things too seriously. There are not many rules so its quite easy.
The internet is designed to create loud and bitter rancour over any issue, the same way an Ibizan disco is meant to be loud. I come on here for blissful tranquility and agreeable chat