SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Incredible. GCHQ advertises jobs with remarkably weak qualifications required. Just a 2:2

However, white men are not allowed to apply. Flat no. How can that be legal?

https://x.com/westminsterpup/status/1712796851299119554?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

If you click through to the actual advert, that simply isn't what is happening. The invitation is to register an interest in a forthcoming vacancy but:

"A registration of interest does not constitute a job application, nor will such registration have any bearing upon the recruitment process itself.

Any individuals who register their interest and who decide subsequently to apply for Maths and Cryptography Roles opportunities will need to complete an application form once the window for applications has opened.

Once the window has opened, we will welcome applications from all candidates, regardless of their ethnic background, gender, disability and/or any other characteristic(s). All applications will be assessed solely on merit."

I do wish you'd just once perform even the most basic due diligence to check what you're sharing is actually true.

Registering an interest is just another way of saying “applying”. And right now you can’t apply if you’re a white man

I’m right and it’s a clear discrimination against white men, but they have probably used this weasel wording - which you applaud - to avoid the law against racial discrimination

Also: isn’t it great they’re deliberately recruiting thick spies on the grounds of Diversity? That’s really gonna help

Scott_xP said:

Meanwhile...

@RubyJLL
🚨cutting whatsapp messages from cabinet secretary simon case and former downing street head of comms lee cain

"i was always told that dom was the secret PM...the real person in charge is carrie"

"we look like a terrible, tragic joke"

"i cannot cope with this"

https://x.com/RubyJLL/status/1712769777238778062?s=20

Oof. Simple Simon won't come out of this well. Odd that he refers to government as 'we' with Lee Cain as well.

Sean_F said:

Taz said:

Sean_F said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

Taz said:

Alanbrooke said:

Irish government siding with Mordor


https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2023/10/12/varadkar-accuses-israeli-government-of-breaching-international-law-in-gaza-siege/

Irish politics has not distinguished itself over this conflict.

The most virulent pro-Hamas western voices are so often Irish. It’s quite noticeable. A fair few Scot Nats and Welsh nutters too, so it’s a Celtic thing

But the Irish lead the way

There was a particular awful comment from a Scottish Green MSP.

Maggie Chapman is an excrescence.

I had to Google that, I’m no dunce either. That’s a great word and most apt.

In masonic first degree ritual, there's a reference to "superfluous knobs and excrescences", which sums her up even better.

Impressive that you have enough excess time and energy to perpetually excoriate pols in countries in which you don’t live and who have zero effect on your existence.

Not dissimilar to those folk who vicariously rant about the injustices done to eg the Palestinians from some leafy suburb while wearing a keffiyeh.

NickPalmer said:

The House GOP still in chaos:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4253448-steve-scalise-drops-out-speakers-race/

Possibilities:

1. Jordan gets it. Has Trump backing and is hostile to Ukraine aid. But opposition to him is "starting to emerge".
2. The GOP says "oh well" and gives it back to McCarthy. Possible but hard to imagine.
3. A compromise candidate emerges and exhausted GOP House members settle for them.

Any of these cases could be aided by the Democrats offering to support someone, but (a) they probably won't and (b) it'd label the winner from the start as "tool of the Democrats".

My guess is 3, but IANAE.

Speaker Trump......

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Incredible. GCHQ advertises jobs with remarkably weak qualifications required. Just a 2:2

However, white men are not allowed to apply. Flat no. How can that be legal?

https://x.com/westminsterpup/status/1712796851299119554?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

If you click through to the actual advert, that simply isn't what is happening. The invitation is to register an interest in a forthcoming vacancy but:

"A registration of interest does not constitute a job application, nor will such registration have any bearing upon the recruitment process itself.

Any individuals who register their interest and who decide subsequently to apply for Maths and Cryptography Roles opportunities will need to complete an application form once the window for applications has opened.

Once the window has opened, we will welcome applications from all candidates, regardless of their ethnic background, gender, disability and/or any other characteristic(s). All applications will be assessed solely on merit."

I do wish you'd just once perform even the most basic due diligence to check what you're sharing is actually true.

Registering an interest is just another way of saying “applying”. And right now you can’t apply if you’re a white man

I’m right and it’s a clear discrimination against white men, but they have probably used this weasel wording - which you applaud - to avoid the law against racial discrimination

Also: isn’t it great they’re deliberately recruiting thick spies on the grounds of Diversity? That’s really gonna help

Now you're not just being a bit of a fool who failed to click the link to verify the position. You've been directly presented with the correct information, and choose to continue with the falsehood.

Look, it explicitly says, "A registration of interest does not constitute a job application" and then you say "Registering an interest is just another way of saying “applying”". That's not a misunderstanding on your part... it's a lie.

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

I’m right and it’s a clear discrimination against white men, but they have probably used this weasel wording - which you applaud - to avoid the law against racial discrimination

Poor white men. When are we going to get a break?

Any type of racial profiling is disgusting IMO.

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Incredible. GCHQ advertises jobs with remarkably weak qualifications required. Just a 2:2

However, white men are not allowed to apply. Flat no. How can that be legal?

https://x.com/westminsterpup/status/1712796851299119554?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

If you click through to the actual advert, that simply isn't what is happening. The invitation is to register an interest in a forthcoming vacancy but:

"A registration of interest does not constitute a job application, nor will such registration have any bearing upon the recruitment process itself.

Any individuals who register their interest and who decide subsequently to apply for Maths and Cryptography Roles opportunities will need to complete an application form once the window for applications has opened.

Once the window has opened, we will welcome applications from all candidates, regardless of their ethnic background, gender, disability and/or any other characteristic(s). All applications will be assessed solely on merit."

I do wish you'd just once perform even the most basic due diligence to check what you're sharing is actually true.

Registering an interest is just another way of saying “applying”. And right now you can’t apply if you’re a white man

I’m right and it’s a clear discrimination against white men, but they have probably used this weasel wording - which you applaud - to avoid the law against racial discrimination

Also: isn’t it great they’re deliberately recruiting thick spies on the grounds of Diversity? That’s really gonna help

Pathetic. Right now no-one can apply. Be a man and admit when you are wrong.

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

I’m right and it’s a clear discrimination against white men, but they have probably used this weasel wording - which you applaud - to avoid the law against racial discrimination

Poor white men. When are we going to get a break?

Even worse for rich white men.

Stocky said:

Leon said:

Incredible. GCHQ advertises jobs with remarkably weak qualifications required. Just a 2:2

However, white men are not allowed to apply. Flat no. How can that be legal?

https://x.com/westminsterpup/status/1712796851299119554?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

A joke surely?

"Women from any ethnic background" - that just means "women" doesn't it?

Plus presumably any men who feel like wearing a frock from time to time...

RobD said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

I’m right and it’s a clear discrimination against white men, but they have probably used this weasel wording - which you applaud - to avoid the law against racial discrimination

Poor white men. When are we going to get a break?

Even worse for rich white men.

Civil service salary structure of lowish early pay but high pension, especially for senior staff, of course favours those with family money.

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

I’m right and it’s a clear discrimination against white men, but they have probably used this weasel wording - which you applaud - to avoid the law against racial discrimination

Poor white men. When are we going to get a break?

wHy iSNt TheRe a WoRLd MEns mEnOpaUSE DaY?

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Incredible. GCHQ advertises jobs with remarkably weak qualifications required. Just a 2:2

However, white men are not allowed to apply. Flat no. How can that be legal?

https://x.com/westminsterpup/status/1712796851299119554?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

If you click through to the actual advert, that simply isn't what is happening. The invitation is to register an interest in a forthcoming vacancy but:

"A registration of interest does not constitute a job application, nor will such registration have any bearing upon the recruitment process itself.

Any individuals who register their interest and who decide subsequently to apply for Maths and Cryptography Roles opportunities will need to complete an application form once the window for applications has opened.

Once the window has opened, we will welcome applications from all candidates, regardless of their ethnic background, gender, disability and/or any other characteristic(s). All applications will be assessed solely on merit."

I do wish you'd just once perform even the most basic due diligence to check what you're sharing is actually true.

Registering an interest is just another way of saying “applying”. And right now you can’t apply if you’re a white man

I’m right and it’s a clear discrimination against white men, but they have probably used this weasel wording - which you applaud - to avoid the law against racial discrimination

Also: isn’t it great they’re deliberately recruiting thick spies on the grounds of Diversity? That’s really gonna help

Now you're not just being a bit of a fool who failed to click the link to verify the position. You've been directly presented with the correct information, and choose to continue with the falsehood.

Look, it explicitly says, "A registration of interest does not constitute a job application" and then you say "Registering an interest is just another way of saying “applying”". That's not a misunderstanding on your part... it's a lie.

They’re just doing what the RAF did, you dribbling cretin

“In the recruitment year to March 2020 and the year to March 2021, a total of 161 ethnic minority and female recruits were "pulled forward" onto initial training ahead of white men.

"We found that concerns were raised at the time by R&S [recruitment and selection] staff but that those who led the initiatives believed that they were 'pushing the boundaries' of positive action rather than acting unlawfully," the report said.”

Theuniondivvie said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

I’m right and it’s a clear discrimination against white men, but they have probably used this weasel wording - which you applaud - to avoid the law against racial discrimination

Poor white men. When are we going to get a break?

wHy iSNt TheRe a WoRLd MEns mEnOpaUSE DaY?

Is this still part of the cryptography test? If you add up the capital letters scrabble points and divide by the number of spaces......

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

maxh said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

A rather grim warning by Israel.

https://www.reuters.com/world/un-says-israeli-military-warns-11-mln-gazans-relocate-south-2023-10-13/

And when (if) those 1.1 million have left and Israel has occupied Gaza City, will it withdraw and let them go back?

The Palestinians won't believe so, as since 1948 that's not tended to be the case.
Which is of course one of the reasons why 'Egypt should just take them all' isn't likely to be an easy solution.

It might seem odd to us to be so passionately attached to somewhere like Gaza, but many are.

There won't be anything much left in Gaza to be attached to. Hamas are not these poor downtrodden innocents imprisoned by the beastly Jew (ssshhhhh don't mention Egypt). The are genocidal terrorist psychopaths.

Like ISIS before them they need to be eradicated. That means killing most of them. Because they aren't going to just give up or reform - like Jake and Ellwood they are on a Mission from God. They have no interest in the innocents in Gaza other than using them as human shields. And as for Egypt and the rest - they have no interest in the civilians either. They are political pawns left to suffer *by them* for regional points scoring.,

This has to end. The status quo can't be sustained, there is no viable status quo ante to wind the clock back to. We need a long-term solution for the diaspora issue and with respect to Egypt and Jordan and Syria their mission of leaving people in multi-generational refugee camps as Someone Else's Problem is also over.

Israel has demonstrated in recent years that it wants diplomatic solutions. Reaching out to make all kinds of previously unlikely alliances. But if diplomacy doesn't work, it will impose a settlement militarily. And as wounded as it is, and as armed as it is, woe betide any of the powers around it who think they still get to disrupt this.

Genuine, not loaded question.
Why is your and others’ entirely appropriate horror at the actions of Hamas not matched by a horror of indiscriminate bombing and killing of civilians in Gaza?
I can think of a few reasons, and am trying to understand whether my moral equivalence between a civilian Palestinian death and a civilian Israeli one is mistaken.
How do you justify this to yourself? (Again, this sounds loaded, it isn’t).

I think the short answer is that evil bastards who behead babies in their cribs deserve everything that is coming to them.

Indeed. But that doesn't apply to the vast majority of people who are now dying in Gaza. So Max's question still stands.

The Max that said this? Formatting-willing, perhaps someone else said it but it appears he did.

"The tricky question for me is the impact on civilians. I’m sympathetic to the comparisons with Germany in WW2 - a regime needed annihilating and there was no way to avoid civilian deaths."

And I disagree with him on that. I do rarely agree with you on some things as well you know. In spite of what you might think the world is not black and white. It is a concept you might consider exploring rather than constantly harking back to historical irrelevances.

One man's historical irrelevance is another's historical precedence. Isn't law established via precedence?

As I said yesterday (PB is nothing if not rehashing previously made arguments), your position is that Country A can do something that it believes is essential for its existence, and then arbitrarily make that something illegal for Country B to do. Why should Country B follow that "law" if it also believes its existence is at stake.

Because it was agreed by all the civilised nations together. The UK and US and others didn't come along and say 'we are imposing this on you from now on but it doesn't apply to us. They said ' these are the rules we believe a civilised world should live by and we are willing to sign up to them even though we have no idea what the future might hold.'

It is the same with chemical and biological weapons, with torture and with myriad other conventions on war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The West is very quick to hold others to these standards and, where possible, to prosecute those who break the rules. We certainly should not then decide they no longer apply because we happen to sympathise with one nation which is 'on our side'.

One of the first acts of the newly formed Israel after the 1948 war was to sign and ratify the Geneva conventions. Why shuld we not hold them to the same standard as they claimed for themselves, even though they knew then that they were in an existential fight against their neighbours?

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Incredible. GCHQ advertises jobs with remarkably weak qualifications required. Just a 2:2

However, white men are not allowed to apply. Flat no. How can that be legal?

https://x.com/westminsterpup/status/1712796851299119554?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

If you click through to the actual advert, that simply isn't what is happening. The invitation is to register an interest in a forthcoming vacancy but:

"A registration of interest does not constitute a job application, nor will such registration have any bearing upon the recruitment process itself.

Any individuals who register their interest and who decide subsequently to apply for Maths and Cryptography Roles opportunities will need to complete an application form once the window for applications has opened.

Once the window has opened, we will welcome applications from all candidates, regardless of their ethnic background, gender, disability and/or any other characteristic(s). All applications will be assessed solely on merit."

I do wish you'd just once perform even the most basic due diligence to check what you're sharing is actually true.

Registering an interest is just another way of saying “applying”. And right now you can’t apply if you’re a white man

I’m right and it’s a clear discrimination against white men, but they have probably used this weasel wording - which you applaud - to avoid the law against racial discrimination

Also: isn’t it great they’re deliberately recruiting thick spies on the grounds of Diversity? That’s really gonna help

Now you're not just being a bit of a fool who failed to click the link to verify the position. You've been directly presented with the correct information, and choose to continue with the falsehood.

Look, it explicitly says, "A registration of interest does not constitute a job application" and then you say "Registering an interest is just another way of saying “applying”". That's not a misunderstanding on your part... it's a lie.

I don't want to be accused of racial profiling but I can imagine a few scenarios where having some spies that aren't white could be kind of useful. Doesn't seem an entirely dumb move, and weird to see people on the right prioritising the niceties of employment law ahead of potential national security imperatives. I mean, maybe the security forces have gone woke, or maybe they actually know what they are doing. Just a thought.

glw said:

Stuartinromford said:

More likely, they're recruiting thick spies because that's all the UK can afford these days.

Public service and working for the King is all very well, but I suspect there are easier ways for top maths grads to make more money than GCHQ are offering here.

UK government embarks on bargain bin hunt for AI policy wonk
https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/13/uk_deputy_director_ai/

For many of us, the £75,000-a-year ($92,000) role with a gilt-edged civil service pension sounds like a valid career move, but against roles being offered by Meta – $1.175 million to work in the labs at Menlo Park – it pales into insignificance.

I seemed to remember they also offered a data scientist job for either Downing Street or the Treasury on £40-50k....you ain't get anybody good for that money.

Leon said:

Don’t come running to me when British security collapses because we’ve got a load of spies who can’t do fractions

If I'm after someone who can do fractions I certainly won't come running to you.

NickPalmer said:

The House GOP still in chaos:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4253448-steve-scalise-drops-out-speakers-race/

Possibilities:

1. Jordan gets it. Has Trump backing and is hostile to Ukraine aid. But opposition to him is "starting to emerge".
2. The GOP says "oh well" and gives it back to McCarthy. Possible but hard to imagine.
3. A compromise candidate emerges and exhausted GOP House members settle for them.

Any of these cases could be aided by the Democrats offering to support someone, but (a) they probably won't and (b) it'd label the winner from the start as "tool of the Democrats".

My guess is 3, but IANAE.

I think you could see someone (maybe even McCarthy) getting in with Democrats abstaining, and part of the price being dropping the concession that a single House member can call a vote to remove.

It's true that the Gaetz faction would be livid but, with that rule removed, what exactly are they going to do about it?

It's also possible that someone clearly on the right (perhaps Jim Jordan, perhaps someone else) would do it with the proviso that the same provision is dropped.

It's that provision that makes the current Congress with its narrow majority entirely ungovernable. If it isn't dropped, I can see whoever gets it beating McCarthy's (post-1900) shortest tenure record.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Incredible. GCHQ advertises jobs with remarkably weak qualifications required. Just a 2:2

However, white men are not allowed to apply. Flat no. How can that be legal?

https://x.com/westminsterpup/status/1712796851299119554?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

If you click through to the actual advert, that simply isn't what is happening. The invitation is to register an interest in a forthcoming vacancy but:

"A registration of interest does not constitute a job application, nor will such registration have any bearing upon the recruitment process itself.

Any individuals who register their interest and who decide subsequently to apply for Maths and Cryptography Roles opportunities will need to complete an application form once the window for applications has opened.

Once the window has opened, we will welcome applications from all candidates, regardless of their ethnic background, gender, disability and/or any other characteristic(s). All applications will be assessed solely on merit."

I do wish you'd just once perform even the most basic due diligence to check what you're sharing is actually true.

Registering an interest is just another way of saying “applying”. And right now you can’t apply if you’re a white man

I’m right and it’s a clear discrimination against white men, but they have probably used this weasel wording - which you applaud - to avoid the law against racial discrimination

Also: isn’t it great they’re deliberately recruiting thick spies on the grounds of Diversity? That’s really gonna help

Now you're not just being a bit of a fool who failed to click the link to verify the position. You've been directly presented with the correct information, and choose to continue with the falsehood.

Look, it explicitly says, "A registration of interest does not constitute a job application" and then you say "Registering an interest is just another way of saying “applying”". That's not a misunderstanding on your part... it's a lie.

I don't want to be accused of racial profiling but I can imagine a few scenarios where having some spies that aren't white could be kind of useful. Doesn't seem an entirely dumb move, and weird to see people on the right prioritising the niceties of employment law ahead of potential national security imperatives. I mean, maybe the security forces have gone woke, or maybe they actually know what they are doing. Just a thought.

Bloody woke rubbish, a tin of Cherry Blossom polish and the ability to speak English with a heavy accent should be entirely sufficient.

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

I’m right and it’s a clear discrimination against white men, but they have probably used this weasel wording - which you applaud - to avoid the law against racial discrimination

Poor white men. When are we going to get a break?

We are fine. We have already established ourselves and so really don't have to worry about this unless you really want to become a NED. Not so easy for the next generations.

Theuniondivvie said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Incredible. GCHQ advertises jobs with remarkably weak qualifications required. Just a 2:2

However, white men are not allowed to apply. Flat no. How can that be legal?

https://x.com/westminsterpup/status/1712796851299119554?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

If you click through to the actual advert, that simply isn't what is happening. The invitation is to register an interest in a forthcoming vacancy but:

"A registration of interest does not constitute a job application, nor will such registration have any bearing upon the recruitment process itself.

Any individuals who register their interest and who decide subsequently to apply for Maths and Cryptography Roles opportunities will need to complete an application form once the window for applications has opened.

Once the window has opened, we will welcome applications from all candidates, regardless of their ethnic background, gender, disability and/or any other characteristic(s). All applications will be assessed solely on merit."

I do wish you'd just once perform even the most basic due diligence to check what you're sharing is actually true.

Registering an interest is just another way of saying “applying”. And right now you can’t apply if you’re a white man

I’m right and it’s a clear discrimination against white men, but they have probably used this weasel wording - which you applaud - to avoid the law against racial discrimination

Also: isn’t it great they’re deliberately recruiting thick spies on the grounds of Diversity? That’s really gonna help

Now you're not just being a bit of a fool who failed to click the link to verify the position. You've been directly presented with the correct information, and choose to continue with the falsehood.

Look, it explicitly says, "A registration of interest does not constitute a job application" and then you say "Registering an interest is just another way of saying “applying”". That's not a misunderstanding on your part... it's a lie.

I don't want to be accused of racial profiling but I can imagine a few scenarios where having some spies that aren't white could be kind of useful. Doesn't seem an entirely dumb move, and weird to see people on the right prioritising the niceties of employment law ahead of potential national security imperatives. I mean, maybe the security forces have gone woke, or maybe they actually know what they are doing. Just a thought.

Bloody woke rubbish, a tin of Cherry Blossom polish and the ability to speak English with a heavy accent should be entirely sufficient.

Given it is specifically for a cryptography job...being able to do maths to a an extremely high standard seems like the first and foremost qualification, but they are happy to take applications from people whose degree marks would exclude them from most bog standard corporate grad schemes.

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

I’m right and it’s a clear discrimination against white men, but they have probably used this weasel wording - which you applaud - to avoid the law against racial discrimination

Poor white men. When are we going to get a break?

It's wrong to rule people either in or out depending upon which identity group they belong to, something they have no control over.

It does great injustice to the individual.

Richard_Tyndall said:

maxh said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

maxh said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

A rather grim warning by Israel.

https://www.reuters.com/world/un-says-israeli-military-warns-11-mln-gazans-relocate-south-2023-10-13/

And when (if) those 1.1 million have left and Israel has occupied Gaza City, will it withdraw and let them go back?

The Palestinians won't believe so, as since 1948 that's not tended to be the case.
Which is of course one of the reasons why 'Egypt should just take them all' isn't likely to be an easy solution.

It might seem odd to us to be so passionately attached to somewhere like Gaza, but many are.

There won't be anything much left in Gaza to be attached to. Hamas are not these poor downtrodden innocents imprisoned by the beastly Jew (ssshhhhh don't mention Egypt). The are genocidal terrorist psychopaths.

Like ISIS before them they need to be eradicated. That means killing most of them. Because they aren't going to just give up or reform - like Jake and Ellwood they are on a Mission from God. They have no interest in the innocents in Gaza other than using them as human shields. And as for Egypt and the rest - they have no interest in the civilians either. They are political pawns left to suffer *by them* for regional points scoring.,

This has to end. The status quo can't be sustained, there is no viable status quo ante to wind the clock back to. We need a long-term solution for the diaspora issue and with respect to Egypt and Jordan and Syria their mission of leaving people in multi-generational refugee camps as Someone Else's Problem is also over.

Israel has demonstrated in recent years that it wants diplomatic solutions. Reaching out to make all kinds of previously unlikely alliances. But if diplomacy doesn't work, it will impose a settlement militarily. And as wounded as it is, and as armed as it is, woe betide any of the powers around it who think they still get to disrupt this.

Genuine, not loaded question.
Why is your and others’ entirely appropriate horror at the actions of Hamas not matched by a horror of indiscriminate bombing and killing of civilians in Gaza?
I can think of a few reasons, and am trying to understand whether my moral equivalence between a civilian Palestinian death and a civilian Israeli one is mistaken.
How do you justify this to yourself? (Again, this sounds loaded, it isn’t).

I think the short answer is that evil bastards who behead babies in their cribs deserve everything that is coming to them.

Indeed. But that doesn't apply to the vast majority of people who are now dying in Gaza. So Max's question still stands.

The Max that said this? Formatting-willing, perhaps someone else said it but it appears he did.

"The tricky question for me is the impact on civilians. I’m sympathetic to the comparisons with Germany in WW2 - a regime needed annihilating and there was no way to avoid civilian deaths."

And I disagree with him on that. I do rarely agree with you on some things as well you know. In spite of what you might think the world is not black and white. It is a concept you might consider exploring rather than constantly harking back to historical irrelevances.

Whereas I often agree with you Richard and am uncertain of my views on this. What solution would you suggest that doesn’t involve civilian deaths?

Sorry Max I missed this earlier. I have just posted my response toa similar question to Cyclefree upthread.

Yep saw that and it turns out we are not disagreeing at all. There will be civilian casualties but the balance of risk needs to be on IDF casualties not Gazan civilians.

A very difficult ask of Israel right now which, if they pulled off, would deserve worldwide respect. Actually that’s not quite strong enough - they’d deserve something much stronger.

It’s probably in their long term interests to do as you suggest, but I imagine it will be a tough sell to an enraged electorate. Not sure Netanyahu is the person for it but we are where we are.

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

Don’t come running to me when British security collapses because we’ve got a load of spies who can’t do fractions

If I'm after someone who can do fractions I certainly won't come running to you.

I’m the smartest person on this board by 7/8 of a standard deviation of 29 IQ points, I’ll have you know

Yet if we asked “which PB poster would you least want in charge of any crisis or any decision that is potentially critical or life-threatening?”, you would top the poll by miles. Indeed it wouldn’t be worth holding it, the outcome would be so obvious. There’s a reason that, while most of us have spent our lives managing actual stuff, your job has merely been to make up stories for others’ entertainment. A job that is also your hobby on here.

Taz said:

Malmesbury said:

Taz said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

Powerful


"How are you allowing this? They want us dead!"

Jewish students confront the University of Washington after student organizations held a pro-Hamas rally on campus. #HamasIsISIS


https://x.com/hananyanaftali/status/1712724898202730756?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

Strange how these US universities normally go to the nth degree to close down any potential offense caused by anybody....siding with nutters about Halloween party clothing that could be offensive, suspending Professors who tried to explain that the Mandarin filler word for ummm sounds rather like an highly offensive slur in English and you will hear this when you visit China.

Perhaps if Hamas had used the wrong pronouns or culturally misappropriated some Israeli culture they’d be moved to act.

IIRC Hamas isn’t a gay friendly organisation.

Yet it does not stop groups like "Queers for Palestine" in their unwavering support.

While they will be amongst the first Hamas "deals" with, most of the rest of us will also be dealt with eventually according to Hamas' chief

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-765304

Since my copy of Asimov's original Foundation Trilogy is three steps away from my desk, I picked it up to answer the question MattW raised.

Briefly, Salvor Hardin, the first Mayor of Terminus, is appalled when Lord Dorwin, visiting from the Empire, wants to find the answer to the origin question (which planet humanity came from) by reading centuries-old writers, rather than doing some digging himself.

Later, when Hardin is meeting with the Encyclopedia board, he provides analyses of the ultimatim from Anacreon, the treaty between the Empire and Anacreon, and the assurances from Lord Dorwin.

Hardin had recorded everything Dorwin had said, during his visit, and had given that, like the documents, to an analyst.

Hardin summarizes: "The analysis was the most difficult of the three by all odds. When Hulk, after two days of steady work, succeeded in eliminating meaningless statements, vague gibberish, useless qualfications--in short all the goo and dribble--he found he had nothing left. Everything canceled out."

(From "The Encyclopedists", the second story in the first book of the trilogy.)

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

Don’t come running to me when British security collapses because we’ve got a load of spies who can’t do fractions

If I'm after someone who can do fractions I certainly won't come running to you.

I’m the smartest person on this board by 7/8 of a standard deviation of 29 IQ points, I’ll have you know

I'm so dumb I don't even understand that response

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68–95–99.7_rule

Leon is boasting that he is in the 50-85% percentile (where 0 is the dumbest and 100 is the smartest) of smart people. I'm buggered if I'm working out the 7/8ths thing

Jim_Miller said:

Since my copy of Asimov's original Foundation Trilogy is three steps away from my desk, I picked it up to answer the question MattW raised.

Briefly, Salvor Hardin, the first Mayor of Terminus, is appalled when Lord Dorwin, visiting from the Empire, wants to find the answer to the origin question (which planet humanity came from) by reading centuries-old writers, rather than doing some digging himself.

Later, when Hardin is meeting with the Encyclopedia board, he provides analyses of the ultimatim from Anacreon, the treaty between the Empire and Anacreon, and the assurances from Lord Dorwin.

Hardin had recorded everything Dorwin had said, during his visit, and had given that, like the documents, to an analyst.

Hardin summarizes: "The analysis was the most difficult of the three by all odds. When Hulk, after two days of steady work, succeeded in eliminating meaningless statements, vague gibberish, useless qualfications--in short all the goo and dribble--he found he had nothing left. Everything canceled out."

(From "The Encyclopedists", the second story in the first book of the trilogy.)

Most useful post today, thank you.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Benpointer said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Possibly taking people with 2:2s is not exactly hiring the best and the brightest. Given the work undertaken, cryptography, I would have hoped / thought, that a 1st would be required. That is still only filtering for the top 1/3 of graduates.

That's bollocks.

A first often indicates the hardest working, the best prepared, or the best (financially) supported , not necessarily the most brilliant.

I once briefly had a boss who was probably the best paid and most sought-after tax lawyer in the City, who had got a 2:2 at a red brick university. By his own account, he spent too much time tinkering with cars, and was also pretty mediocre at a lot of law... but happened to be a genius in one rather niche area of it.

That's not at all uncommon, I suspect. A lot of people with 2.2s aren't anything like that, of course... but, anecdotally, I have a hunch that there are more geniuses with 2.2s than with 2.1s. I have a 2.1 myself, and it is the degree of the perfectly competent plodder.

Agree. But it's also a non-issue, because the GCHQ job doesn't preclude applications from those with a first. The 2:2 mentioned in the advert is a minimum, not a maximum.

Yousaf continues to have a good war:

https://twitter.com/SCoJeC/status/1712806291859447977?t=VraDIZ-3HtkRGXN40Aes4w&s=19

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

maxh said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

A rather grim warning by Israel.

https://www.reuters.com/world/un-says-israeli-military-warns-11-mln-gazans-relocate-south-2023-10-13/

And when (if) those 1.1 million have left and Israel has occupied Gaza City, will it withdraw and let them go back?

The Palestinians won't believe so, as since 1948 that's not tended to be the case.
Which is of course one of the reasons why 'Egypt should just take them all' isn't likely to be an easy solution.

It might seem odd to us to be so passionately attached to somewhere like Gaza, but many are.

There won't be anything much left in Gaza to be attached to. Hamas are not these poor downtrodden innocents imprisoned by the beastly Jew (ssshhhhh don't mention Egypt). The are genocidal terrorist psychopaths.

Like ISIS before them they need to be eradicated. That means killing most of them. Because they aren't going to just give up or reform - like Jake and Ellwood they are on a Mission from God. They have no interest in the innocents in Gaza other than using them as human shields. And as for Egypt and the rest - they have no interest in the civilians either. They are political pawns left to suffer *by them* for regional points scoring.,

This has to end. The status quo can't be sustained, there is no viable status quo ante to wind the clock back to. We need a long-term solution for the diaspora issue and with respect to Egypt and Jordan and Syria their mission of leaving people in multi-generational refugee camps as Someone Else's Problem is also over.

Israel has demonstrated in recent years that it wants diplomatic solutions. Reaching out to make all kinds of previously unlikely alliances. But if diplomacy doesn't work, it will impose a settlement militarily. And as wounded as it is, and as armed as it is, woe betide any of the powers around it who think they still get to disrupt this.

Genuine, not loaded question.
Why is your and others’ entirely appropriate horror at the actions of Hamas not matched by a horror of indiscriminate bombing and killing of civilians in Gaza?
I can think of a few reasons, and am trying to understand whether my moral equivalence between a civilian Palestinian death and a civilian Israeli one is mistaken.
How do you justify this to yourself? (Again, this sounds loaded, it isn’t).

I think the short answer is that evil bastards who behead babies in their cribs deserve everything that is coming to them.

Still murderers of civilian's on both sides should get same treatment David. There have been issues from both sides in past years which have led to this horrific mess. We are seeing plenty of pictures of children in tatters and dead babies from Gaza now as well. None of it makes it right.

Murderers I agree. But there is a moral difference between cutting a child's throat and, for example, firing at a school being used by gunmen even when it has civilians or even children in it.

I do agree

Burgessian said:

viewcode said:

Taz said:

Sean_F said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

Taz said:

Alanbrooke said:

Irish government siding with Mordor


https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2023/10/12/varadkar-accuses-israeli-government-of-breaching-international-law-in-gaza-siege/

Irish politics has not distinguished itself over this conflict.

The most virulent pro-Hamas western voices are so often Irish. It’s quite noticeable. A fair few Scot Nats and Welsh nutters too, so it’s a Celtic thing

But the Irish lead the way

There was a particular awful comment from a Scottish Green MSP.

Maggie Chapman is an excrescence.

I had to Google that, I’m no dunce either. That’s a great word and most apt.

I had to Google "Maggie Chapman". I am sometimes very naive.

She was one of the members of the Holyrood committee that ruled out flying the Israeli flag at the Scottish Parliament. Given the SNP enthusiasm for flags that was quite a message for Scotland's Jewish community.

She is a real nutter

Chris said:

Cyclefree said:

maxh said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

A rather grim warning by Israel.

https://www.reuters.com/world/un-says-israeli-military-warns-11-mln-gazans-relocate-south-2023-10-13/

And when (if) those 1.1 million have left and Israel has occupied Gaza City, will it withdraw and let them go back?

The Palestinians won't believe so, as since 1948 that's not tended to be the case.
Which is of course one of the reasons why 'Egypt should just take them all' isn't likely to be an easy solution.

It might seem odd to us to be so passionately attached to somewhere like Gaza, but many are.

There won't be anything much left in Gaza to be attached to. Hamas are not these poor downtrodden innocents imprisoned by the beastly Jew (ssshhhhh don't mention Egypt). The are genocidal terrorist psychopaths.

Like ISIS before them they need to be eradicated. That means killing most of them. Because they aren't going to just give up or reform - like Jake and Ellwood they are on a Mission from God. They have no interest in the innocents in Gaza other than using them as human shields. And as for Egypt and the rest - they have no interest in the civilians either. They are political pawns left to suffer *by them* for regional points scoring.,

This has to end. The status quo can't be sustained, there is no viable status quo ante to wind the clock back to. We need a long-term solution for the diaspora issue and with respect to Egypt and Jordan and Syria their mission of leaving people in multi-generational refugee camps as Someone Else's Problem is also over.

Israel has demonstrated in recent years that it wants diplomatic solutions. Reaching out to make all kinds of previously unlikely alliances. But if diplomacy doesn't work, it will impose a settlement militarily. And as wounded as it is, and as armed as it is, woe betide any of the powers around it who think they still get to disrupt this.

Genuine, not loaded question.
Why is your and others’ entirely appropriate horror at the actions of Hamas not matched by a horror of indiscriminate bombing and killing of civilians in Gaza?
I can think of a few reasons, and am trying to understand whether my moral equivalence between a civilian Palestinian death and a civilian Israeli one is mistaken.
How do you justify this to yourself? (Again, this sounds loaded, it isn’t).

Let me ask you two questions. Again not loaded.

1. Do you think Israel should defend itself against Hamas so as to prevent what happened on Saturday from happening again?

2. If so, how?

It's noticeable that the only answer to maxh's question so far has been that "evil bastards who behead babies in their cribs deserve everything that is coming to them", which is absolutely nonsensical, given that the question was about civilians in Gaza.

Would it be any easier to answer another question - are you horrified by the casualties among civilians in Gaza?

Yes - I have been saying this from the start. In war innocent civilians are killed. And it is extremely sad. I wish it could be otherwise. I have even suggested a way (pie in the sky, no doubt) as to how it might be avoided.

I have been posting these two questions for days now. And no-one has given me an answer. So I am starting to think that those who say Israel should exercise self-restraint because otherwise Palestinian civilians will be killed are simply saying that Israel should not defend itself and must just put up with massacres. That is a morally reprehensible view to my mind. If this happened to us we would not take such a view. We have no business expecting Israel to behave differently to us. It as if Jews must be expected to be victims and to be blamed if they try to avoid this.

maxh said:

Cyclefree said:

maxh said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

A rather grim warning by Israel.

https://www.reuters.com/world/un-says-israeli-military-warns-11-mln-gazans-relocate-south-2023-10-13/

And when (if) those 1.1 million have left and Israel has occupied Gaza City, will it withdraw and let them go back?

The Palestinians won't believe so, as since 1948 that's not tended to be the case.
Which is of course one of the reasons why 'Egypt should just take them all' isn't likely to be an easy solution.

It might seem odd to us to be so passionately attached to somewhere like Gaza, but many are.

There won't be anything much left in Gaza to be attached to. Hamas are not these poor downtrodden innocents imprisoned by the beastly Jew (ssshhhhh don't mention Egypt). The are genocidal terrorist psychopaths.

Like ISIS before them they need to be eradicated. That means killing most of them. Because they aren't going to just give up or reform - like Jake and Ellwood they are on a Mission from God. They have no interest in the innocents in Gaza other than using them as human shields. And as for Egypt and the rest - they have no interest in the civilians either. They are political pawns left to suffer *by them* for regional points scoring.,

This has to end. The status quo can't be sustained, there is no viable status quo ante to wind the clock back to. We need a long-term solution for the diaspora issue and with respect to Egypt and Jordan and Syria their mission of leaving people in multi-generational refugee camps as Someone Else's Problem is also over.

Israel has demonstrated in recent years that it wants diplomatic solutions. Reaching out to make all kinds of previously unlikely alliances. But if diplomacy doesn't work, it will impose a settlement militarily. And as wounded as it is, and as armed as it is, woe betide any of the powers around it who think they still get to disrupt this.

Genuine, not loaded question.
Why is your and others’ entirely appropriate horror at the actions of Hamas not matched by a horror of indiscriminate bombing and killing of civilians in Gaza?
I can think of a few reasons, and am trying to understand whether my moral equivalence between a civilian Palestinian death and a civilian Israeli one is mistaken.
How do you justify this to yourself? (Again, this sounds loaded, it isn’t).

Let me ask you two questions. Again not loaded.

1. Do you think Israel should defend itself against Hamas so as to prevent what happened on Saturday from happening again?

2. If so, how?

1. 100% yes. It would be utterly intolerable for them to do anything else.

2. At the moment I can’t see a better option than an occupation. My caveat, for what it is worth, is that the IDF should be prepared to accept military casualties on their own side rather than perpetrate civilian casualties needlessly. I recognise this is a very difficult ask, which is part of why what Hamas does (using civilian shields) is so reprehensible. I think it is incumbent on the more powerful side to be more restrained, esp given they effectively have a blank cheque from USA.

Bigger picture, though, is that my issue with your position is the question you’re not asking: do you think that, by accident of birth, a baby or child in Gaza should be more expendable than one in Israel?

Didn't see your response when I posted just now.

Thank you.

My answer to your question is no. No-one should. The reality of life is that some are. Hamas is responsible for treating the children in Gaza as expendable by deliberately putting them in harm's way. But far too many seem to think that they should not be blamed for this - only Israel.

The brutal reality is that the Israeli government - like every government - puts the interests of its own citizens first. In the choice between an Israeli child and a Palestinian one they put the former first. The tragedy for Palestinian children is that their own government does not do the same. It is happy for them to be killed. It wants them to be killed. And far too many will ignore this and revert to a comfortable position of blaming Israel for this.

When a people have had such brutality inflicted on them, there is something deeply unpleasant about those not affected telling the victims to turn the other cheek and rise above it all.

The Palestinians won't believe so, as since 1948 that's not tended to be the case.
Which is of course one of the reasons why 'Egypt should just take them all' isn't likely to be an easy solution.

It might seem odd to us to be so passionately attached to somewhere like Gaza, but many are.

There won't be anything much left in Gaza to be attached to. Hamas are not these poor downtrodden innocents imprisoned by the beastly Jew

Cyclefree said:

maxh said:

Cyclefree said:

maxh said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

A rather grim warning by Israel.

https://www.reuters.com/world/un-says-israeli-military-warns-11-mln-gazans-relocate-south-2023-10-13/

And when (if) those 1.1 million have left and Israel has occupied Gaza City, will it withdraw and let them go back?

The Palestinians won't believe so, as since 1948 that's not tended to be the case.
Which is of course one of the reasons why 'Egypt should just take them all' isn't likely to be an easy solution.

It might seem odd to us to be so passionately attached to somewhere like Gaza, but many are.

There won't be anything much left in Gaza to be attached to. Hamas are not these poor downtrodden innocents imprisoned by the beastly Jew (ssshhhhh don't mention Egypt). The are genocidal terrorist psychopaths.

Like ISIS before them they need to be eradicated. That means killing most of them. Because they aren't going to just give up or reform - like Jake and Ellwood they are on a Mission from God. They have no interest in the innocents in Gaza other than using them as human shields. And as for Egypt and the rest - they have no interest in the civilians either. They are political pawns left to suffer *by them* for regional points scoring.,

This has to end. The status quo can't be sustained, there is no viable status quo ante to wind the clock back to. We need a long-term solution for the diaspora issue and with respect to Egypt and Jordan and Syria their mission of leaving people in multi-generational refugee camps as Someone Else's Problem is also over.

Israel has demonstrated in recent years that it wants diplomatic solutions. Reaching out to make all kinds of previously unlikely alliances. But if diplomacy doesn't work, it will impose a settlement militarily. And as wounded as it is, and as armed as it is, woe betide any of the powers around it who think they still get to disrupt this.

Genuine, not loaded question.
Why is your and others’ entirely appropriate horror at the actions of Hamas not matched by a horror of indiscriminate bombing and killing of civilians in Gaza?
I can think of a few reasons, and am trying to understand whether my moral equivalence between a civilian Palestinian death and a civilian Israeli one is mistaken.
How do you justify this to yourself? (Again, this sounds loaded, it isn’t).

Let me ask you two questions. Again not loaded.

1. Do you think Israel should defend itself against Hamas so as to prevent what happened on Saturday from happening again?

2. If so, how?

1. 100% yes. It would be utterly intolerable for them to do anything else.

2. At the moment I can’t see a better option than an occupation. My caveat, for what it is worth, is that the IDF should be prepared to accept military casualties on their own side rather than perpetrate civilian casualties needlessly. I recognise this is a very difficult ask, which is part of why what Hamas does (using civilian shields) is so reprehensible. I think it is incumbent on the more powerful side to be more restrained, esp given they effectively have a blank cheque from USA.

Bigger picture, though, is that my issue with your position is the question you’re not asking: do you think that, by accident of birth, a baby or child in Gaza should be more expendable than one in Israel?

Didn't see your response when I posted just now.

Thank you.

My answer to your question is no. No-one should. The reality of life is that some are. Hamas is responsible for treating the children in Gaza as expendable by deliberately putting them in harm's way. But far too many seem to think that they should not be blamed for this - only Israel.

The brutal reality is that the Israeli government - like every government - puts the interests of its own citizens first. In the choice between an Israeli child and a Palestinian one they put the former first. The tragedy for Palestinian children is that their own government does not do the same. It is happy for them to be killed. It wants them to be killed. And far too many will ignore this and revert to a comfortable position of blaming Israel for this.

When a people have had such brutality inflicted on them, there is something deeply unpleasant about those not affected telling the victims to turn the other cheek and rise above it all.

@cyclefree I’ll reply on here to avoid restarting things on a new thread.

I think it is crucial to distinguish between ‘what is’ and ‘what ought to be’ when considering responses to Hamas’ atrocities.

I agree with much of your post but would match your brutal reality with another. It is part of the utterly invidious position that the Israeli government finds itself in that if they do value their own children above those of Palestinian children, they are likely simply to perpetuate the violence in the region. That is a ‘what is’ statement, not a ‘what ought to be’ statement.

And, from a Gazan perspective, your last paragraph could in a different sense be applied the other way around. They might not have experienced terror in the same way, but they have experienced brutality from Israel. Perhaps necessary brutality in Israeli eyes.

I don’t think we have the moral authority to tell either side to turn the other cheek. In my view instructing a million Palestinians to abandon their homes and communities is asking them to do just that.

It is probably an entirely intractable problem overall - if there IS ever to be a long term solution, my gut is that it requires almost inhuman restraint from the IDF in how they respond, as well as an acceptance on the part of ordinary Gazans that their lives are going to be uprooted once more. I doubt I would have that restraint were I directly involved on either side, but sometimes a distant
perspective is needed.

Leon said:

Don’t come running to me when British security collapses because we’ve got a load of spies who can’t do fractions

Let's hope they can at least use full stops.