Why replacing Boris Johnson will not be enough – politicalbetting.com

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Leon said:

In an airport hotel in a conservative suburb of Istanbul which is not only Dry, and next to the world’s biggest mosque, it is so Puritan it won’t let me comment on here via the hotel Wi-Fi. Evil betting!

When I get to Montenegro I am going to have three negronis while I wank to interracial lesbian porn stars playing naked poker

It does not seem too long ago that you advised us all to holiday in Turkey because Islam-inspired restrictions had been forgotten. Your travelogues are great but you perhaps tend to extrapolate wildly from the very small sample of wherever the FK Gazette has arranged a freebie.

And if you are not using a reputable vpn, be wary of browsing content over hotel wifi that might leave you open to blackmail.

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

Benpointer said:

turbotubbs said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure.
Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.

My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.

Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!

Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.

My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.

Slavery sounds a bit like the elephant in the room on that syllabus.

Because after all, much of the original industrial growth was due to the products being made for barter for slaves in West Africa, and the profits of the slave trade being reinvested in new machinery to make more...

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.

Leon said:

TRAVEL ANECDATA

Erdogan’s gleaming, enormous new Istanbul airport (roughly the size of greater Chicago) is absolutely RAMMED





There’s a massive European war, the world is rocked by inflation, entire countries are going down the bog, a chunk of the globe is still closed by Covid, yet… millions of people are happily travelllng

I find it genuinely hard to reconcile these things.

Tho I guess the Roaring Twenties took place at a time of great worldwide instability

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.

He's gone up in my estimation though.

malcolmg said:

Leon said:

TRAVEL ANECDATA

Erdogan’s gleaming, enormous new Istanbul airport (roughly the size of greater Chicago) is absolutely RAMMED





There’s a massive European war, the world is rocked by inflation, entire countries are going down the bog, a chunk of the globe is still closed by Covid, yet… millions of people are happily travelllng

I find it genuinely hard to reconcile these things.

Tho I guess the Roaring Twenties took place at a time of great worldwide instability

Also inflation o in Turkey at 70%, cannot see it being rammed forever

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.

And Prince William is even more woke than his father.

I've been pretty lonely on the republican right but I've been saying for years that King Charles III will ensure I'm not lonely.

Cookie said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.

He's gone up in my estimation though.

Our estimation of the suitability if future monarchs should not be based on whether they agree or disagree with us in their public utterances, but whether they can successfully say nothing at all.
Because if they can't, they and their institution are doomed.

Casino_Royale said:

Cookie said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.

He's gone up in my estimation though.

Our estimation of the suitability if future monarchs should not be based on whether they agree or disagree with us in their public utterances, but whether they can successfully say nothing at all.
Because if they can't, they and their institution are doomed.

Unfortunately, Prince Charles labours under the misapprehension that people are interested in what he thinks and what he has to say.

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.

He's gone up in my estimation though.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.

And Prince William is even more woke than his father.

I've been pretty lonely on the republican right but I've been saying for years that King Charles III will ensure I'm not lonely.

tlg86 said:

Foxy said:

tlg86 said:

Foxy said:

tlg86 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/25/bbc-amol-rajan-phrase-pro-life-roe-v-wade-interview

BBC’s Amol Rajan criticised for using phrase ‘pro-life’ in Roe v Wade interview

The term, which is considered partisan, was used twice by Amol Rajan during Saturday morning’s Today programme on Radio 4, in segments about the landmark ruling ending Americans’ constitutional right to abortion.

The BBC News style guide advises journalists to “use anti-abortion rather than pro-life, except where it is part of the title of a group’s name”.

Hannah Barham-Brown, deputy leader of the Women’s Equality party, said: “Anti-choice campaigners have long tried to hide behind the facade of being ‘pro-life’ when the reality is that they are anything but – they are really trying to restrict women’s freedoms.”

This is interesting. I can only speak for myself, but my views on this subject are not influenced by wanting to restrict women’s freedoms. I wonder if deep down the words pro life are quite difficult for some on the pro choice side of the debate?

I’m a pragmatist, but if I’m honest, once there’s a heartbeat, I think abortion is murder. But I think it’s justified murder to a point (personally I’d go for 12 weeks rather than 24 weeks). Perhaps some on the pro choice side of the debate wouldn’t like to hear that, but this is a very difficult issue, and we should be honest about what abortion is.

89% of UK abortions are in the first 10 weeks, with a similar proportion being from medical rather than surgical procedures. Peak age for abortions is 22 years, and recent years shows a sharp drop in teenage abortions, down by 2/3. I think this reflects the sharp drop in teenage pregnancies.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2021/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2021

Later abortions are more often complex reasons, the most clear cut being for severe congenital defects. The practical issue here is often that these cannot be detected until 16-18 weeks. Many of the rest have complex social or medical issues around them.

So broadly, I am content with current UK practice.

Useful stats, and I broadly agree, though I’d like a clear “in exceptional circumstances” caveat to limit late abortions to things that don’t get picked up until late.

But, that’s another moral maze. Sally Phillips wants to ban testing for Down’s as she fears we’re going to effectively end up with no children with Down’s.

Now, I don’t actually know for sure, but I’d imagine that Phillips supports a woman’s right to choose. But it’s interesting that she wants to take that right away in some circumstances.

As far as I understand, Sally Phillips doesn't regard Downs Syndrome as a disability severe enough to warrant abortion. Indeed (via her own son with Downs) she sees Downs as an important strand in the human tapestry.

Her documentary "A world without Downs" is a very thoughtful and nuanced discussion of the issues around abortion for Downs, and fair to both sides, not the usual trench warfare that is seen on the subject. I highly recommend it. It asks the question "What sort of world do we want, and who should be allowed to live in it?"




https://youtu.be/BhmIeSxXcxE

What is considered a severe disability under Section E of the abortion Act is not defined, and is well worth discussion. Spina Bifida? Anencephally? Downs, cleft palate?

Absolutely, it’s a very interesting and difficult subject. But... there is a difficulty in arguing for the right to choose but then saying not in those cases.

And actually, as long as the limit is 24 weeks without caveat, this is purely academic. If a woman can have an abortion anyway, how we view children with Down’s doesn’t come into it.

Casino_Royale said:

Cookie said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.

He's gone up in my estimation though.

Our estimation of the suitability if future monarchs should not be based on whether they agree or disagree with us in their public utterances, but whether they can successfully say nothing at all.
Because if they can't, they and their institution are doomed.

Unfortunately, Prince Charles labours under the misapprehension that people are interested in what he thinks and what he has to say.

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

TRAVEL ANECDATA

Erdogan’s gleaming, enormous new Istanbul airport (roughly the size of greater Chicago) is absolutely RAMMED





There’s a massive European war, the world is rocked by inflation, entire countries are going down the bog, a chunk of the globe is still closed by Covid, yet… millions of people are happily travelllng

I find it genuinely hard to reconcile these things.

Tho I guess the Roaring Twenties took place at a time of great worldwide instability

How is your Turkish? Redundant, by the look of all that signage.

Where are you off to after Montenegro?

malcolmg said:

Leon said:

TRAVEL ANECDATA

Erdogan’s gleaming, enormous new Istanbul airport (roughly the size of greater Chicago) is absolutely RAMMED





There’s a massive European war, the world is rocked by inflation, entire countries are going down the bog, a chunk of the globe is still closed by Covid, yet… millions of people are happily travelllng

I find it genuinely hard to reconcile these things.

Tho I guess the Roaring Twenties took place at a time of great worldwide instability

Also inflation o in Turkey at 70%, cannot see it being rammed forever

NickPalmer said:

Calling Richard Tyndall - does this account of an oil rig town sound plausible, or is she just hyping her book?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/jun/25/cocaine-class-everyone-in-this-town-takes-drugs-all-the-time

Andy_JS said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.

The monarch is popular because she doesn't get involved in politics in the slightest. The rest of the royals don't seem to understand that crucial point.

HYUFD said:

Northern_Al said:

I write, if I may, in defence of HYUFD, who is often maligned on here as the sole remaining Boris acolyte.

I don't think HYUFD likes Boris much at all. He has little time for him. He likes neither his character, which he thinks is disreputable, nor his policies, which are far too soggy and mushy in most respects. All he likes about Boris is that he is an election winner for the Tories. Nothing else. And he still backs Boris because he just can't see any of the current alternatives doing any better electorally. He may well be right (until recently, I thought he was, but not any more). HYUFD is a Tory loyalist, but not a Boris loyalist.

HYUFD will of course correct me if I am wrong, and I shall apologise.

Not far off, if Ben Wallace or Hunt led Starmer in hypothetical polls I would switch to them now

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Cookie said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.

He's gone up in my estimation though.

Our estimation of the suitability if future monarchs should not be based on whether they agree or disagree with us in their public utterances, but whether they can successfully say nothing at all.
Because if they can't, they and their institution are doomed.

Unfortunately, Prince Charles labours under the misapprehension that people are interested in what he thinks and what he has to say.

If you have no interest, why all the above comments ?
And if no one has any interest in what he has to say, why do his comments matter at all ?
(I actually agree with the point, which is why his comments don’t bother me in the slightest.)

Sandpit said:

tlg86 said:

Foxy said:

tlg86 said:

Foxy said:

tlg86 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/25/bbc-amol-rajan-phrase-pro-life-roe-v-wade-interview

BBC’s Amol Rajan criticised for using phrase ‘pro-life’ in Roe v Wade interview

The term, which is considered partisan, was used twice by Amol Rajan during Saturday morning’s Today programme on Radio 4, in segments about the landmark ruling ending Americans’ constitutional right to abortion.

The BBC News style guide advises journalists to “use anti-abortion rather than pro-life, except where it is part of the title of a group’s name”.

Hannah Barham-Brown, deputy leader of the Women’s Equality party, said: “Anti-choice campaigners have long tried to hide behind the facade of being ‘pro-life’ when the reality is that they are anything but – they are really trying to restrict women’s freedoms.”

This is interesting. I can only speak for myself, but my views on this subject are not influenced by wanting to restrict women’s freedoms. I wonder if deep down the words pro life are quite difficult for some on the pro choice side of the debate?

I’m a pragmatist, but if I’m honest, once there’s a heartbeat, I think abortion is murder. But I think it’s justified murder to a point (personally I’d go for 12 weeks rather than 24 weeks). Perhaps some on the pro choice side of the debate wouldn’t like to hear that, but this is a very difficult issue, and we should be honest about what abortion is.

89% of UK abortions are in the first 10 weeks, with a similar proportion being from medical rather than surgical procedures. Peak age for abortions is 22 years, and recent years shows a sharp drop in teenage abortions, down by 2/3. I think this reflects the sharp drop in teenage pregnancies.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2021/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2021

Later abortions are more often complex reasons, the most clear cut being for severe congenital defects. The practical issue here is often that these cannot be detected until 16-18 weeks. Many of the rest have complex social or medical issues around them.

So broadly, I am content with current UK practice.

Useful stats, and I broadly agree, though I’d like a clear “in exceptional circumstances” caveat to limit late abortions to things that don’t get picked up until late.

But, that’s another moral maze. Sally Phillips wants to ban testing for Down’s as she fears we’re going to effectively end up with no children with Down’s.






Now, I don’t actually know for sure, but I’d imagine that Phillips supports a woman’s right to choose. But it’s interesting that she wants to take that right away in some circumstances.

As far as I understand, Sally Phillips doesn't regard Downs Syndrome as a disability severe enough to warrant abortion. Indeed (via her own son with Downs) she sees Downs as an important strand in the human tapestry.

Her documentary "A world without Downs" is a very thoughtful and nuanced discussion of the issues around abortion for Downs, and fair to both sides, not the usual trench warfare that is seen on the subject. I highly recommend it. It asks the question "What sort of world do we want, and who should be allowed to live in it?"




https://youtu.be/BhmIeSxXcxE

What is considered a severe disability under Section E of the abortion Act is not defined, and is well worth discussion. Spina Bifida? Anencephally? Downs, cleft palate?

Absolutely, it’s a very interesting and difficult subject. But... there is a difficulty in arguing for the right to choose but then saying not in those cases.

And actually, as long as the limit is 24 weeks without caveat, this is purely academic. If a woman can have an abortion anyway, how we view children with Down’s doesn’t come into it.

The issue is more that the medical
professionals have been known to push hard for all these tests, and then push hard on the woman to have an abortion if any of the tests are positive. There are many reports of vulnerable families being pressured into abortions, this is one of the subjects of the Sally Philips documentary referenced above.

Casino_Royale said:

Cookie said:

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

Benpointer said:

turbotubbs said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure.
Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.

My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.

Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!

Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.

My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.

I did all of the above in my lessons at school, and my Oxford children's history of Britain volumes (published 1983) pulled no punches about slavery.


But, you've got to understand this isn't really
about teaching slavery in schools: it's about teaching it incessantly and in a certain way in order to
inculcate a sense of shame about Britain and
guilt about its past into future generations, and
is thus highly political.

Yes. This is how they intend to smuggle Critical Race Theory into British schools

Because it’s been SUCH a success in America and has, in no way, provoked intense loathing and a backlash on the American Right

I went to view a (private) secondary school we were considering for one of my daughters recently. It was painfully woke. "Some people are trans, get over it" declared posters all around the school. Barrages of newspaper headlines from the Independent about BLM, climate change and Brexit. "Join the equality society!", pupils were repeatedly urged. We looked in on a history lesson, which, naturally, was about slavery. Toilets for boys, toilets for girls and toilets for 'whatever'. Posters decrying the evils of gender stereotypes.
You expect this kind of shit in schools where the council can set the agenda, but it's a bit disappointing that this is also what you get if you pay for it. It was like being in Twitter.

Sadly, there's probably a market for it amongst certain well-off guardianista types.

It's quite simple for me: I'll pull my daughter out of any school that tries to pull shit like that on her.

Mexicanpete said:

TOPPING said:

Boris usually gives good interview. Upbeat, sunlit uplands in sight, never caught out or needing to pause to find an answer, etc

Yesterday's on R4 he was none of these things. As though the kryptonite was wearing off in front of our eyes.

He was (more) unsure, hesitant, unknowing than I have ever heard him.

Is this it?

"Boris usually gives good interview". Really?

"Buses, errrrrrrr, I like buses". Hiding in fridges etc.

Johnson hasn't even been convincing with the "sunny uplands" schtick since he became Prime Minister, or certainly after he won his landslide.

I am intrigued by all the Dick Dastardly stuff posted on here this morning. Could Johnson really utilise Raab and Braverman's unparalleled legal expertise to manipulate the electoral system in order to retain power for a third term? Bear n mind Dick Dastardly's fate at the end of each Wacky Races episode.

It will be fascinating to watch.

Sandpit said:

Cookie said:

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

Benpointer said:

turbotubbs said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure.
Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.

My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.

Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!

Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.

My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.

I did all of the above in my lessons at school, and my Oxford children's history of Britain volumes (published 1983) pulled no punches about slavery.


But, you've got to understand this isn't really
about teaching slavery in schools: it's about teaching it incessantly and in a certain way in order to
inculcate a sense of shame about Britain and
guilt about its past into future generations, and
is thus highly political.

Yes. This is how they intend to smuggle Critical Race Theory into British schools

Because it’s been SUCH a success in America and has, in no way, provoked intense loathing and a backlash on the American Right

I went to view a (private) secondary school we were considering for one of my daughters recently. It was painfully woke. "Some people are trans, get over it" declared posters all around the school. Barrages of newspaper headlines from the Independent about BLM, climate change and Brexit. "Join the equality society!", pupils were repeatedly urged. We looked in on a history lesson, which, naturally, was about slavery. Toilets for boys, toilets for girls and toilets for 'whatever'. Posters decrying the evils of gender stereotypes.
You expect this kind of shit in schools where the council can set the agenda, but it's a bit disappointing that this is also what you get if you pay for it. It was like being in Twitter.

One of the subjects that keeps coming up out here in Expatville is education. There are people taking jobs out here specifically for the schools - international, UK, US and IB curriculum, but with none of the woke nonesense on top of it.

MoonRabbit said:

malcolmg said:

Benpointer said:

malcolmg said:

StuartDickson said:

JosiasJessop said:

StuartDickson said:

Anyone else consider it very odd that we haven’t had a single Scottish opinion poll since Sturgeon’s 2023 independence referendum announcement?

The last Holyrood poll was 18-23 May (S47 L23 C18) and the last Westminster poll was 23-29 May (S44 L23 C19).

The obvious explanation is that the findings are too worrying for the Unionist media to publish.

Looking at the following (assuming it is complete), then month-long gaps are not uncommon. It seems there are often gluts of Scottish opinion polls, and long dearths:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Scottish_Parliament_election

Absolutely, but a referendum announcement usually prompts a flurry of polls. We have… none. Which looks suspicious.

They know it is just more bluff to keep kicking it down the road . She is running out of road, all the stolen money , perjury case et c can only be held up for so long. Many of these crooks will get their day in court.

Sorry Malc, I am genuinely losing the plot. You are pro-independence but anti-Sturgeon, have I got that right?

Yes indeed, she is all talk and no action and crooked into the bargain. She is wrecking scotland, her and her bunch of self id creeps and gravy trainers. They have no principles.

I am not disagreeing with what you are saying at all. But in your mind would they deliver a different independence than ALBA? An independence self serving to their party or just different on key bits than Alba?

Alba is the perfect name for a Scottish Nationalist political party btw.

Sandpit said:

Sad news from Ukraine overnight, a number of missiles launched from Belarus into Ukraine, targeting cities including Kiev, and hitting residential buildings - places where things had started to return to some sense of normality, even as war continues to rage in the East of the country. https://t.me/dtpkiev/297578

NickPalmer said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.

And Prince William is even more woke than his father.

I've been pretty lonely on the republican right but I've been saying for years that King Charles III will ensure I'm not lonely.

In terms of winning over young people for the monarchy they are both right though, a pure anti Woke agenda is not sustainable long term for the right

That's right (and note that it's HYUFD saying it, not the Guardian).

Personally I don't think the monarch or soon-to-be-monarch should express an opinion on anything - not slavery, not architecture, not GM. Nothing. But I can see a case for the monarch, supposedly representing all the people of all the countries in the Commonwealth, showing that they are alive to the significance of slavery in the context of Imperial history.

Bottom line, though, is that a fundamental point of monarchy is that none of us have the slightest right to tell the monarch what to do and say. They can be woke, anti-woke, communist, fascist, devil-worshipping, whatever. If one believes in monarchy one accepts that the outcome is entirely out of our control. That's why, ultimately, it's a daft way to choose the national leader.

Cookie said:

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

Benpointer said:

turbotubbs said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure.
Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.

My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.

Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!

Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.

My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.

I did all of the above in my lessons at school, and my Oxford children's history of Britain volumes (published 1983) pulled no punches about slavery.


But, you've got to understand this isn't really
about teaching slavery in schools: it's about teaching it incessantly and in a certain way in order to
inculcate a sense of shame about Britain and
guilt about its past into future generations, and
is thus highly political.

Yes. This is how they intend to smuggle Critical Race Theory into British schools

Because it’s been SUCH a success in America and has, in no way, provoked intense loathing and a backlash on the American Right

I went to view a (private) secondary school we were considering for one of my daughters recently. It was painfully woke. "Some people are trans, get over it" declared posters all around the school. Barrages of newspaper headlines from the Independent about BLM, climate change and Brexit. "Join the equality society!", pupils were repeatedly urged. We looked in on a history lesson, which, naturally, was about slavery. Toilets for boys, toilets for girls and toilets for 'whatever'. Posters decrying the evils of gender stereotypes.
You expect this kind of shit in schools where the council can set the agenda, but it's a bit disappointing that this is also what you get if you pay for it. It was like being in Twitter.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

The problem with any history syllabus is that there's so much darned history, and the bastards keep on making more of it.

Take GCSE maths. It should be fairly easy to decide what is in a GCSE maths syllabus (will get harder at A-level though). Numbers, algebra, statistics, geometry, graphs, etc, at a basic level. A pass mark in GCSE maths should mean a pupil has enough maths skills to cope with everyday life.

But history... what do you teach about history? Of the massive amount of history out there, what do you choose to teach? And why those particular choices?

It is not just that there is lots of history; after all, there are lots of French words and even more numbers. In olden times, history was taught as a gentle amble through the history of wherever you lived and then Britain, in chronological order, with emphasis on regnal dates and battles. That is what Michael Gove wanted to return to. It will have included slavery.

Now, GCSE history has been chopped up into modules, presented out of order. Lots is left out; some is included about foreigners like the unification of Italy; some barely history at all like Middle East wars since the 1990s. Maybe Prince Charles is saying there should be a compulsory slavery topic; possibly he is struggling to remember what he learned at school in 1960s Scotland.

There is also the problem that history does not get harder in the same way that other subjects do, like maths or physics (even though those subjects are taught in opposite directions) so if you did teach in chronological order, children will necessarily be younger at the slave trade than at the Holocaust, although they might have dropped history by then.

NickPalmer said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.

And Prince William is even more woke than his father.

I've been pretty lonely on the republican right but I've been saying for years that King Charles III will ensure I'm not lonely.

In terms of winning over young people for the monarchy they are both right though, a pure anti Woke agenda is not sustainable long term for the right

That's right (and note that it's HYUFD saying it, not the Guardian).

Personally I don't think the monarch or soon-to-be-monarch should express an opinion on anything - not slavery, not architecture, not GM. Nothing. But I can see a case for the monarch, supposedly representing all the people of all the countries in the Commonwealth, showing that they are alive to the significance of slavery in the context of Imperial history.

Bottom line, though, is that a fundamental point of monarchy is that none of us have the slightest right to tell the monarch what to do and say. They can be woke, anti-woke, communist, fascist, devil-worshipping, whatever. If one believes in monarchy one accepts that the outcome is entirely out of our control. That's why, ultimately, it's a daft way to choose the national leader.

turbotubbs said:

Carnyx said:

turbotubbs said:

tlg86 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/25/bbc-amol-rajan-phrase-pro-life-roe-v-wade-interview

BBC’s Amol Rajan criticised for using phrase ‘pro-life’ in Roe v Wade interview

The term, which is considered partisan, was used twice by Amol Rajan during Saturday morning’s Today programme on Radio 4, in segments about the landmark ruling ending Americans’ constitutional right to abortion.

The BBC News style guide advises journalists to “use anti-abortion rather than pro-life, except where it is part of the title of a group’s name”.

Hannah Barham-Brown, deputy leader of the Women’s Equality party, said: “Anti-choice campaigners have long tried to hide behind the facade of being ‘pro-life’ when the reality is that they are anything but – they are really trying to restrict women’s freedoms.”

This is interesting. I can only speak for myself, but my views on this subject are not influenced by wanting to restrict women’s freedoms. I wonder if deep down the words pro life are quite difficult for some on the pro choice side of the debate?

I’m a pragmatist, but if I’m honest, once there’s a heartbeat, I think abortion is murder. But I think it’s justified murder to a point (personally I’d go for 12 weeks rather than 24 weeks). Perhaps some on the pro choice side of the debate wouldn’t like to hear that, but this is a very difficult issue, and we should be honest about what abortion is.

Interesting to hear on the BBC the qualification about states banning abortion except where there is risk to the mother. This nuance seemed to be missing in a lot of the comments previously.
I don’t agree with the decision, but it suggests that changes will be a death sentence for women with ectopic pregnancies is a bit overblown.

Trouble with that is there is always a risk to the mother in childbirth, and after. That could be the next thing to go, if it isn't already in some states.

Fair enough, but I saw a lot of nonsense about ectopic pregnancies yesterday/Friday, including on PB.

OldKingCole said:

edmundintokyo said:

OT, UK banning imports of Russian gold:
https://twitter.com/Barnes_Joe/status/1540946338027798530

This is kind of mostly pointless because they'll just end up shuffling other production around so India buys more from Russia and less from somebody else then the UK buys more from somebody else.

What they should be doing is reducing *overall demand* for gold. They could start by putting VAT on it even when bought as an "investment", like Japan does. Raises some tax revenue, and defunds China a little bit as well.

Can they afford to do that? After all what will it do to Conservative party finances?

Cookie said:

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

Benpointer said:

turbotubbs said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure.
Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.

My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.

Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!

Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.

My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.

I did all of the above in my lessons at school, and my Oxford children's history of Britain volumes (published 1983) pulled no punches about slavery.


But, you've got to understand this isn't really
about teaching slavery in schools: it's about teaching it incessantly and in a certain way in order to
inculcate a sense of shame about Britain and
guilt about its past into future generations, and
is thus highly political.

Yes. This is how they intend to smuggle Critical Race Theory into British schools

Because it’s been SUCH a success in America and has, in no way, provoked intense loathing and a backlash on the American Right

I went to view a (private) secondary school we were considering for one of my daughters recently. It was painfully woke. "Some people are trans, get over it" declared posters all around the school. Barrages of newspaper headlines from the Independent about BLM, climate change and Brexit. "Join the equality society!", pupils were repeatedly urged. We looked in on a history lesson, which, naturally, was about slavery. Toilets for boys, toilets for girls and toilets for 'whatever'. Posters decrying the evils of gender stereotypes.
You expect this kind of shit in schools where the council can set the agenda, but it's a bit disappointing that this is also what you get if you pay for it. It was like being in Twitter.

Nigelb said:

The third SC decision which didn’t get much notice last week.

Alito’s Attack on Miranda Warnings Is Worse Than It Seems
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/06/miranda-warnings-supreme-court-alito-kagan.html
The justice lays the groundwork for a direct blow to the right against self-incrimination.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

MoonRabbit said:

malcolmg said:

Benpointer said:

malcolmg said:

StuartDickson said:

JosiasJessop said:

StuartDickson said:

Anyone else consider it very odd that we haven’t had a single Scottish opinion poll since Sturgeon’s 2023 independence referendum announcement?

The last Holyrood poll was 18-23 May (S47 L23 C18) and the last Westminster poll was 23-29 May (S44 L23 C19).

The obvious explanation is that the findings are too worrying for the Unionist media to publish.

Looking at the following (assuming it is complete), then month-long gaps are not uncommon. It seems there are often gluts of Scottish opinion polls, and long dearths:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Scottish_Parliament_election

Absolutely, but a referendum announcement usually prompts a flurry of polls. We have… none. Which looks suspicious.

They know it is just more bluff to keep kicking it down the road . She is running out of road, all the stolen money , perjury case et c can only be held up for so long. Many of these crooks will get their day in court.

Sorry Malc, I am genuinely losing the plot. You are pro-independence but anti-Sturgeon, have I got that right?

Yes indeed, she is all talk and no action and crooked into the bargain. She is wrecking scotland, her and her bunch of self id creeps and gravy trainers. They have no principles.

I am not disagreeing with what you are saying at all. But in your mind would they deliver a different independence than ALBA? An independence self serving to their party or just different on key bits than Alba?

Alba is the perfect name for a Scottish Nationalist political party btw.

Alba would be a good name if the cheap hifi brand had not got their first.

rcs1000 said:

Cookie said:

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

Benpointer said:

turbotubbs said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure.
Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.

My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.

Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!

Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.

My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.

I did all of the above in my lessons at school, and my Oxford children's history of Britain volumes (published 1983) pulled no punches about slavery.


But, you've got to understand this isn't really
about teaching slavery in schools: it's about teaching it incessantly and in a certain way in order to
inculcate a sense of shame about Britain and
guilt about its past into future generations, and
is thus highly political.

Yes. This is how they intend to smuggle Critical Race Theory into British schools

Because it’s been SUCH a success in America and has, in no way, provoked intense loathing and a backlash on the American Right

I went to view a (private) secondary school we were considering for one of my daughters recently. It was painfully woke. "Some people are trans, get over it" declared posters all around the school. Barrages of newspaper headlines from the Independent about BLM, climate change and Brexit. "Join the equality society!", pupils were repeatedly urged. We looked in on a history lesson, which, naturally, was about slavery. Toilets for boys, toilets for girls and toilets for 'whatever'. Posters decrying the evils of gender stereotypes.
You expect this kind of shit in schools where the council can set the agenda, but it's a bit disappointing that this is also what you get if you pay for it. It was like being in Twitter.

Statistically, it's hard to have more than one-in-twenty history lessons over an eight year secondary period being about slavery.

So, it is more likely that the school thought that it's audience - i.e. you - care about it.

Leon said:

TRAVEL ANECDATA

Erdogan’s gleaming, enormous new Istanbul airport (roughly the size of greater Chicago) is absolutely RAMMED





There’s a massive European war, the world is rocked by inflation, entire countries are going down the bog, a chunk of the globe is still closed by Covid, yet… millions of people are happily travelllng

I find it genuinely hard to reconcile these things.

Tho I guess the Roaring Twenties took place at a time of great worldwide instability

rottenborough said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

This is some scary shit

Miller: President Trump… I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court yesterday https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1540852015693037568/video/1

At a political rally in 2021, Miller praised Hitler & paraphrased a line that Hitler gave during a 1935 Nazi rally. Her mention of “white life” sounds about alt-right https://twitter.com/acyn/status/1540852015693037568

Putting aside the obvious neo-nazism, I don't follow her logic. She thinks only white woman are having abortions?

It's actually the other way around: black women are more likely to have abortions than white ones. So, she's actually supporting a policy that makes the Great Replacement more likely.

So neo-nazi and plain stupid?

Gallowgate said:

I learned absolutely nothing about the British Empire at school (turned 18 in 2010).

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

SouthamObserver said:

RochdalePioneers said:

SouthamObserver said:

RochdalePioneers said:

On topic the thing that bemuses me most is that the damage that seems to have really wound up Tory grandees isn't the byelection losses. Its Johnson's response to them. His "I am sick of people whining on about my position" and "blah blah blah" and "I will go on and on and on" is what has really wound them up. Why?

Because it demonstrates that he has no clue what people care about. Probably because the only person he truly cares about is himself. Not his colleagues. Not his discarded wives mistresses and children. Not the country or the people. Just himself.

Happily he has fiilled his cabinet with liars and charlatans like Patel and Dorries and Braverman who also only care about themselves. But thats not enough any more. Both byelection and council election results show that the anti-Tory tactical vote is getting stronger and better organised. That is what scares them.

I am just waiting to see how the Tories try to use the control of the Electoral Commission they gave themselves to try to make tactical voting much more difficult. Whatever they choose to do, Braverman will give legal cover for.

They have two basic problems:
1. They can't just change the electoral process to rig elections. Or "ban" tactical voting. The Lords won;t allow it. And the courts will stop it.
2. Braverman is off the chart stupid. Her consent writes the legal appeal against her consent.

Fundamental problem. (Soon to be Lord) Dacre screeches on about evil electoral plots. But Labour ran in Tiverton, and the LibDems ran in Wakefield. It is the *electorate* who are choosing how to vote. The fundamental principle of our democratic system.

How do you stop this? Force people to vote for a particular party?

I genuinely would not put anything past this government. It has absolutely no commitment to either democracy or the rule of law. It was very interesting yesterday to see the Bruges Group singing the praises of Viktor Orban. The Spectator is a huge admirer of his as well. That's the modern Conservative party right there.

As I said (to some derision) - proto-fascist. Was interesting to see the russian troll pop up singing songs about LGBT people like me needing to be put back in our deviant box. Dorries bangs on about the evil state-funded Channel 4 broadcasting woke into people's heads. So yeah, it's their direction of travel. Not because they see LGBT (as an example) to be morally wrong. Just
politically advantageous as a wedge issue.

But we will all be ok. Because they don't even have the majority in their own party any more. And that doesn't have the monopoly of public opinion. So "woke" has already won.

If “Woke” has already won, why are you wetting your bi-curious undercrackers, quite ridiculously, about “proto Fascism” in the Tories?

rottenborough said:

dixiedean said:

rottenborough said:

DavidL said:

Gardenwalker said:

Macca is soooooo old.

He looks pretty good for 80 but his voice is completely shot.

All part of the current state of the world. Biden, Trump, Macca - 80 year old boomers not leaving the stage.

Pity His Bobness isn't just dictator.

Who is the oldest seriously active rock/pop musician?

Dylan is 81.

Paul Simon is 80, but not really active.

Richard_Tyndall said:

FPT

NickPalmer said:

Calling Richard Tyndall - does this account of an oil rig town sound plausible, or is she just hyping her book?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/jun/25/cocaine-class-everyone-in-this-town-takes-drugs-all-the-time

Morning Nick

Nah. It might have been true of 30 years ago but not now. There is drugs of course but no more than any other town and not generally amongst the oil workers themselves. At least not in the UK.

Constant and random drug testing both on and offshore with immediate dismissal tends to limit its use. Plus the fact that anyone known to be using will be grassed up in short order by their colleagues. Being stuck on a metal box filled with dangerous machinery and high pressure hydrocarbons tends to concentrate the mind somewhat and no one wants to be working alongside someone who might be flaky.

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

Benpointer said:

turbotubbs said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure.
Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.

My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.

Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!

Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.

My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.

I was taught about the slave triangle at about the age of 9 but purely as a geographical-economic phenomenon - never a hint there was moral question marks over any of it

Charles is of course right. The slave trade was morally on a par with the holocaust, and wins by a country mile in terms of total human misery produced, despite the revoltingly batty Nazi death camp bad, splendid Empire death camp good mentality one quite often comes across.

He’s right if you include ALL the slave trades

My objection to the way it is taught is that total focus on the Atlantic slave trade (which was of course repulsive) at the exclusion of all the others. i was taught a lot about the slave trade at my state schools, and I was definitely taught it was bad, but if I had not gone on to read around the subject as an adult I would be blissfully unaware the the Islamic trade in slaves (African and white European) was much older, longer lasting, and considerably larger in absolute terms. And arguably even crueller (the use of automatic castration, for example)

But the Woke educators don’t want kids to know about this. They just want to teach White = Bad