I see this morning that the police put the group letting off fireworks yesterday at 150. So much for @Leon's tens of thousands. And @Casino_Royale thinks @Leon's hysterical reporting was reliable.
So higher than the number of hooligans arrested yet?
@Leon was right. It reflects badly on too many posters on here that they don't have the humility or integrity to admit it.
??? Tens of thousands compared to 150 makes @leon right? Honestly some people will defend any old nonsense.
Given the majority of the casuals went for a ruck (many of whom would be happy to have a go at plod) but the majority of the pro Hamas/pro gaza/pro ceasefire/anti Israel marchers/supporters didn’t then it is no surprise that the numbers are proportionally different. Leon’s point on the reporting was not unreasonable.
@leon claimed there were tens of thousands letting off fireworks. How is that reasonable and not hysterical?
No I didn’t. I said 5-10% of the pro-Palestine marchers had a sinister quality to them (entirely masked, black clothes, very aggressive chanting), I said the other 90% - 90% - were perfectly pleasant and peaceful
I then said (IIRC) that multiple people were letting off fireworks, from different directions. And that is all true
It's much easier for him to argue against a straw man, though.
Like I said: an idiot.
Sad thing is though you and he are wrong. He did say it and he has asked me to cut and paste it which I have done. Eat humble pie.
You're the one that needs to eat humble pie.
You complete idiot with zero integrity.
Seems you can't admit when you were wrong after all.
I see this morning that the police put the group letting off fireworks yesterday at 150. So much for @Leon's tens of thousands. And @Casino_Royale thinks @Leon's hysterical reporting was reliable.
So higher than the number of hooligans arrested yet?
@Leon was right. It reflects badly on too many posters on here that they don't have the humility or integrity to admit it.
I am not sure the self-styled John Pilger of the right is that much of a reliable witness anytime after the sun over the yardarm confirms noon.
Trebles all 'round.
Leon Pilchard, always something a bit fishy about that lad.
Leon - anything incorrect or just selective reporting that you are complaining about?
Deeply selective reporting
No mention that the pro-Palestinians were shooting fireworks at the faces of the cops, by the end
No mention of the attempted stabbings, the menacing gangs, the mobbing of Gove, the cars driving around full of people shouting at Jews
That is the summary from the Live page. If we look instead at the BBC's main story, it does mention Gove (with video), the PM condemning both sides, and the police issuing three pictures of pro-Palestine marchers they want to identify. It says there have been 188 hate crime arrests, most for antisemitic offences, since 7th October. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67390514
The only real complaint I can see about the BBC Live reporting Leon complains about is that this refers to a splinter group of pro-Palestine marchers but that is not mentioned in the summary: Officers also intercepted a group of 150. Arrests were made after some of the fireworks struck officers in the face
However scrolling down finds a fuller account which is:- Arrests made after officers struck by fireworks - police Earlier we reported that officers detained a breakaway group of about 150 people from the pro-Palestinian demonstration.
The statement from the assistant commissioner says the group of 150 were "wearing face coverings and firing fireworks".
He says "arrests were made" after some officers were struck in the face with fireworks.
His statement adds that the Met will be publishing images people suspected to have committed offences, such as showing support for UK proscribed terrorist organisations, including Hamas.
And earlier than that, where it becomes clear the BBC reporters did not see this first-hand:-
We've had another update from the Metropolitan Police to say that officers have detained a breakaway group of around 150 people from the pro-Palestinian demonstration.
The group in Grosvenor Place in Belgravia were firing fireworks and many are wearing face coverings, the force says in a post on X, formerly Twitter.
Officers are detaining and searching those involved under Section 60 and 60AA powers, the Met adds.
The Met is using the word detained in its statement, but this may not be the same as being arrested. BBC News is asking the Met for more information.
Channel 4 news partiality, or lack of it, is certainly not a surprise. It’s becoming a bit of a left of centre GB News.
There was a group of casuals detained by the police yesterday to prevent a breach of the peace.
People who call all casuals neo nazi or far right are wrong. Some will be.
Most just turn up for,a ruck and a pissup. They were even brawling among themselves. Their politics goes across the whole spectrum. They just like a tear up.
I'm amused by the way Linekar and others are complaining about them being called "Football Hooligans". Their clubs might not have been playing, but they are organised through the diseased sport he earns millions from us to speak cr@p about.
My son and his U15 team play every week, they train twice a week. Every weekend hundreds of thousands of mostly young people give their all, getting fresh air and exercise and learning about teamwork and dedication. Millions watch games, enjoying the excitement and spectacle of a beautiful game that enjoys global appeal. A few frustrated, angry, violent men who attach themselves to the game for the purpose of violence do not represent it. Diseased sport my arse.
Josias has an irrational hatred of our national game, and knows sod all about it. He is best ignored on this topic.
Yes, there's an areshole element in every population, so no surprise they occur amongst footballers and fans.
Oddly don’t get the same at rugby and home and away fans mingle happily.
Defenders of football need to ask why Bath vs Gloucester can have fans mixed, drinking together but Portsmouth vs Southampton cannot. Ther3 is something ‘off’ with football. The behaviour towards refs at both the highest level and sadly at kids level too.
I love both sports, but there is a wilful blindness about the bad aspects of football from those in and around the game.
The police have been reporting how post COVID trouble at lower league football has got a lot worse, even at clubs who have no history of it e.g. my team Crewe Alex.
How many arrests in Gloucester on Friday night? Thinking about it I don’t even recall seeing the police when I watch Bath at the rec.
They must have been there. Its a legal requirement with crowds in excess of a certain figure... and Gloucester v
Let me admit one other thing I got wrong (show you how it's done): up until about 9am yesterday I thought The March was planned *for today* to clash with the main Rememberance Sunday event, and the mass march past the cenotaph by thousands of veterans. I got that wrong and felt pretty silly about it - although I bet I wasn't the only one. Mea culpa.
Tsk. So ill-informed
Yes, but I don't see it as a weakness to admit when I get it wrong - and to do so publicly, as well.
I was out of order in how I addressed you yesterday as well. I hope you can accept my apologies.
It was unnecessary and uncalled for.
Apology accepted... I pardon you
Schindler's List?
Didn't that guy sniper shot the boy through the head anyway five minutes later?
Yeah, that scene always freaks me out, you think the boy's gonna be just fine
It's a brilliant but horrifying film.
One of the Schindler Jews who met Ralph Fiennes on set started shaking uncontrollably, as he reminded her too much of real Amon Goeth.
Yesterday I mentioned a book on the WW2 work of MI19. At the start it gave a potted biography of Thomas Kendrick, MI19's head. In 1938 he was in Vienna, working for MI6. He created entry permits for 10,000 Austrian Jews to get out of Austria and into Palestine. The UK government did not like this, and reprimanded him...
There were a lot of people like Schindler about, who got little of Schindler's prominence. And who also had none of Schindler's negatives.
I think Suella’s small boats election plan is highly doubtful but wouldn’t be surprised if it gets a few frontbenchers thinking. They are probably right that an election on culture wars would be better for them than an election on the economy and public services.
The problem for the government is fourfold:
- Labour is refusing the play the culture war game. As a party bigwig put it at an event I was at this week, they aim to make themselves the smallest possible moving target for anything on CATT* - Focusing on really gamey topics like Rwanda, where there is evidence in front of voters of Tory inaction, could backfire if it drives more people to Refuk - Not many small boats around at this time of year. We’re entering the down season for channel crossings so the Mail will struggle for recent footage - The choreography of the next few weeks doesn’t help. After the Rwanda judgment we’re pretty much straight into the Autumn statement. That puts Jeremy Hunt in the foreground. Not a culture warrior. And also puts the economy and tax and spend back in the headlines. So a snap election on small boats would have to either involve cancelling the autumn statement, or doing it afterwards when the news cycle has moved on from Rwanda.
*CATT is apparently the Tory agreed upon attack strategy. Climate, Asylum, Trans and some other T I now can’t remember.
I see this morning that the police put the group letting off fireworks yesterday at 150. So much for @Leon's tens of thousands. And @Casino_Royale thinks @Leon's hysterical reporting was reliable.
So higher than the number of hooligans arrested yet?
@Leon was right. It reflects badly on too many posters on here that they don't have the humility or integrity to admit it.
??? Tens of thousands compared to 150 makes @leon right? Honestly some people will defend any old nonsense.
Given the majority of the casuals went for a ruck (many of whom would be happy to have a go at plod) but the majority of the pro Hamas/pro gaza/pro ceasefire/anti Israel marchers/supporters didn’t then it is no surprise that the numbers are proportionally different. Leon’s point on the reporting was not unreasonable.
@leon claimed there were tens of thousands letting off fireworks. How is that reasonable and not hysterical?
He didn't say that.
Let me admit one other thing I got wrong (show you how it's done): up until about 9am yesterday I thought The March was planned *for today* to clash with the main Rememberance Sunday event, and the mass march past the cenotaph by thousands of veterans. I got that wrong and felt pretty silly about it - although I bet I wasn't the only one. Mea culpa.
You?
Lots of people thought that so don't worry about it. Completely reasonable.
Leon did say ten to fifteen thousand people. Love to admit I was wrong, but I'm not. He said it. He did.
You are being added to my idiots list.
Well done.
What you mean because I quoted @leon accurately and you cocked up. I mean not difficult to check. His post is there from yesterday. You seriously want me to say I got something wrong which clearly I didn't.
You are completely barking mad.
You’re very confident of my quote. Can you cut and paste it on here?
LOL
"The fireworks came from all over: I have the photos. The idea this was just "150" is comforting garbage
By the end it WAS down to a hardcore - of several thousand, maybe 10-15,000"
Do I say every single one of those 10-15,000 had fireworks? No, of course not. It would be physically impossible
I’m saying that the march reduced to about 10-15,000 who looked like they wanted trouble. And they found it in multiple places
“Pro Palestine protesters firing rocket fireworks up and down roads leading into Victoria. Zero police interjection. They are having fun now despite danger to public #remembranceday”
Given Remembrance Day is today that would be difficult ! And exactly what was disrupted yesterday in terms of the actual Cenotaph re the pro Palestinian march ?
The only disruption there was by hooligans and the EDL .
And I saw the EDL and they were pathetic racist thugs and i said so on here. Also quite fat
But there was 238 of them, not 30,000 or 300,000 - that’s the point
@leon hmmm…as a (relatively) neutral observer munching popcorn the morning after, you’ve been a bit skewered by @kjh here. Your ‘just 150’ followed by the next paragraph has a very clear implication.
Excellent barney, though, I’m thoroughly enjoying the repercussions, especially CR as the Robin to your Batman. Chapeau.
On a very basic level, if a slogan is consistently and widely misunderstood, it’s not a very good slogan, so needs changing. If you’re concerned about the misunderstanding, of course.
If a slogan is being wilfully misinterpreted by people - or if one interpretation is being attributed to people who quite obviously are not using it in that way - isn't it possible that this is because there are people who object to all interpretations of the slogan, and are trying to shut down debate? In my view, calling into question the existence of Israel - as an explicitly Jewish state in which Arab Muslims and Christians are second class citizens at best while the West Bank and Gaza are respectively occupied and encroached upon and strangled economically - is legitimate, while calling for Jews living anywhere in the world to be harmed or forced from their homes is utterly disgusting and wrong. All states are simply political creations and it can never be wrong to question whether they are an appropriate mechanism for delivering security and happiness to their citizens. Defending human rights is what matters, not defending a specific form of political organisation. Now you may take the view that I do, that calling for Israel and the occupied territories to be replaced by a single secular state in which all people are free and equal citizens is a waste of time as it simply won't happen, but I don't think that it should be viewed as an extreme or hateful position to do so. There is plenty of unambiguously hateful and antisemitic abuse for the authorities to investigate, unfortunately, without trying to criminalise the use of a phrase that means different things to different people. I hate to think of Jewish people being upset on hearing the phrase and it's not one I have ever used myself in part for that reason, but I think that banning phrases because people get upset by them is a slippery slope to go down and not one I could support.
I think Suella’s small boats election plan is highly doubtful but wouldn’t be surprised if it gets a few frontbenchers thinking. They are probably right that an election on culture wars would be better for them than an election on the economy and public services.
The problem for the government is fourfold:
- Labour is refusing the play the culture war game. As a party bigwig put it at an event I was at this week, they aim to make themselves the smallest possible moving target for anything on CATT* - Focusing on really gamey topics like Rwanda, where there is evidence in front of voters of Tory inaction, could backfire if it drives more people to Refuk - Not many small boats around at this time of year. We’re entering the down season for channel crossings so the Mail will struggle for recent footage - The choreography of the next few weeks doesn’t help. After the Rwanda judgment we’re pretty much straight into the Autumn statement. That puts Jeremy Hunt in the foreground. Not a culture warrior. And also puts the economy and tax and spend back in the headlines. So a snap election on small boats would have to either involve cancelling the autumn statement, or doing it afterwards when the news cycle has moved on from Rwanda.
*CATT is apparently the Tory agreed upon attack strategy. Climate, Asylum, Trans and some other T I now can’t remember.
Tents?
Yes!
They are going to fight a general election on taking tents away from the homeless?
I think Suella’s small boats election plan is highly doubtful but wouldn’t be surprised if it gets a few frontbenchers thinking. They are probably right that an election on culture wars would be better for them than an election on the economy and public services.
The problem for the government is fourfold:
- Labour is refusing the play the culture war game. As a party bigwig put it at an event I was at this week, they aim to make themselves the smallest possible moving target for anything on CATT* - Focusing on really gamey topics like Rwanda, where there is evidence in front of voters of Tory inaction, could backfire if it drives more people to Refuk - Not many small boats around at this time of year. We’re entering the down season for channel crossings so the Mail will struggle for recent footage - The choreography of the next few weeks doesn’t help. After the Rwanda judgment we’re pretty much straight into the Autumn statement. That puts Jeremy Hunt in the foreground. Not a culture warrior. And also puts the economy and tax and spend back in the headlines. So a snap election on small boats would have to either involve cancelling the autumn statement, or doing it afterwards when the news cycle has moved on from Rwanda.
*CATT is apparently the Tory agreed upon attack strategy. Climate, Asylum, Trans and some other T I now can’t remember.
The economy, stupid?
The only way that works is if inflation rates are W-A-Y down by next October and interest rates have followed them, generating some kind of feel good factor.
Oh, and we discover enough Unobtanium to fuel the world. That might help. A bit.
I think Suella’s small boats election plan is highly doubtful but wouldn’t be surprised if it gets a few frontbenchers thinking. They are probably right that an election on culture wars would be better for them than an election on the economy and public services.
The problem for the government is fourfold:
- Labour is refusing the play the culture war game. As a party bigwig put it at an event I was at this week, they aim to make themselves the smallest possible moving target for anything on CATT* - Focusing on really gamey topics like Rwanda, where there is evidence in front of voters of Tory inaction, could backfire if it drives more people to Refuk - Not many small boats around at this time of year. We’re entering the down season for channel crossings so the Mail will struggle for recent footage - The choreography of the next few weeks doesn’t help. After the Rwanda judgment we’re pretty much straight into the Autumn statement. That puts Jeremy Hunt in the foreground. Not a culture warrior. And also puts the economy and tax and spend back in the headlines. So a snap election on small boats would have to either involve cancelling the autumn statement, or doing it afterwards when the news cycle has moved on from Rwanda.
*CATT is apparently the Tory agreed upon attack strategy. Climate, Asylum, Trans and some other T I now can’t remember.
On a very basic level, if a slogan is consistently and widely misunderstood, it’s not a very good slogan, so needs changing. If you’re concerned about the misunderstanding, of course.
If a slogan is being wilfully misinterpreted by people - or if one interpretation is being attributed to people who quite obviously are not using it in that way - isn't it possible that this is because there are people who object to all interpretations of the slogan, and are trying to shut down debate? In my view, calling into question the existence of Israel - as an explicitly Jewish state in which Arab Muslims and Christians are second class citizens at best while the West Bank and Gaza are respectively occupied and encroached upon and strangled economically - is legitimate, while calling for Jews living anywhere in the world to be harmed or forced from their homes is utterly disgusting and wrong. All states are simply political creations and it can never be wrong to question whether they are an appropriate mechanism for delivering security and happiness to their citizens. Defending human rights is what matters, not defending a specific form of political organisation. Now you may take the view that I do, that calling for Israel and the occupied territories to be replaced by a single secular state in which all people are free and equal citizens is a waste of time as it simply won't happen, but I don't think that it should be viewed as an extreme or hateful position to do so. There is plenty of unambiguously hateful and antisemitic abuse for the authorities to investigate, unfortunately, without trying to criminalise the use of a phrase that means different things to different people. I hate to think of Jewish people being upset on hearing the phrase and it's not one I have ever used myself in part for that reason, but I think that banning phrases because people get upset by them is a slippery slope to go down and not one I could support.
Hmmm… I agree with your conclusion but not your reasoning.
In my view, don’t ban it, but also educate yourself enough not to chant it.
Of course it means different things to different people, but there is enough historical scapegoating and murdering of Jews globally that some additional self-censorship seems appropriate.
For similar reasons I’d probably not draw a caricature of Mohammed, even though I don’t want it to be illegal to do so.
I see this morning that the police put the group letting off fireworks yesterday at 150. So much for @Leon's tens of thousands. And @Casino_Royale thinks @Leon's hysterical reporting was reliable.
So higher than the number of hooligans arrested yet?
@Leon was right. It reflects badly on too many posters on here that they don't have the humility or integrity to admit it.
??? Tens of thousands compared to 150 makes @leon right? Honestly some people will defend any old nonsense.
Given the majority of the casuals went for a ruck (many of whom would be happy to have a go at plod) but the majority of the pro Hamas/pro gaza/pro ceasefire/anti Israel marchers/supporters didn’t then it is no surprise that the numbers are proportionally different. Leon’s point on the reporting was not unreasonable.
@leon claimed there were tens of thousands letting off fireworks. How is that reasonable and not hysterical?
He didn't say that.
Let me admit one other thing I got wrong (show you how it's done): up until about 9am yesterday I thought The March was planned *for today* to clash with the main Rememberance Sunday event, and the mass march past the cenotaph by thousands of veterans. I got that wrong and felt pretty silly about it - although I bet I wasn't the only one. Mea culpa.
You?
Lots of people thought that so don't worry about it. Completely reasonable.
Leon did say ten to fifteen thousand people. Love to admit I was wrong, but I'm not. He said it. He did.
You are being added to my idiots list.
Well done.
What you mean because I quoted @leon accurately and you cocked up. I mean not difficult to check. His post is there from yesterday. You seriously want me to say I got something wrong which clearly I didn't.
You are completely barking mad.
You’re very confident of my quote. Can you cut and paste it on here?
LOL
"The fireworks came from all over: I have the photos. The idea this was just "150" is comforting garbage
By the end it WAS down to a hardcore - of several thousand, maybe 10-15,000"
Do I say every single one of those 10-15,000 had fireworks? No, of course not. It would be physically impossible
I’m saying that the march reduced to about 10-15,000 who looked like they wanted trouble. And they found it in multiple places
“Pro Palestine protesters firing rocket fireworks up and down roads leading into Victoria. Zero police interjection. They are having fun now despite danger to public #remembranceday”
Given Remembrance Day is today that would be difficult ! And exactly what was disrupted yesterday in terms of the actual Cenotaph re the pro Palestinian march ?
The only disruption there was by hooligans and the EDL .
And I saw the EDL and they were pathetic racist thugs and i said so on here. Also quite fat
But there was 238 of them, not 30,000 or 300,000 - that’s the point
@leon hmmm…as a (relatively) neutral observer munching popcorn the morning after, you’ve been a bit skewres by @kjh here. Your ‘just 150’ followed by the next paragraph has a very clear implication.
Excellent barney, though, I’m thoroughly enjoying the repercussions, especially CR as the Robin to your Batman. Chapeau.
I mean, I really haven’t. But I’m beyond caring now. More interestingly, I’ve just discovered on TwiX why PB is the way it is, and sometimes SO annoying - for me at least
“Something happens with highly intelligent people (140IQ+) which is interesting. People within the range of average to above average (100IQ-125IQ) struggle to recognize them, but people who are average to slightly below average (85IQ-99IQ) recognize them almost instantly.”
Most of PB is 100-125 IQ. You therefore struggle to understand me; meantime I get frustrated because I presume you can swiftly infer things the way I can. But you can’t, you can’t make the obvious logical leaps, you need to be talked through it and have it explained (tediously, for me)
Hence we get these dialogues of the deaf. This weekend is an example
On a very basic level, if a slogan is consistently and widely misunderstood, it’s not a very good slogan, so needs changing. If you’re concerned about the misunderstanding, of course.
If a slogan is being wilfully misinterpreted by people - or if one interpretation is being attributed to people who quite obviously are not using it in that way - isn't it possible that this is because there are people who object to all interpretations of the slogan, and are trying to shut down debate? In my view, calling into question the existence of Israel - as an explicitly Jewish state in which Arab Muslims and Christians are second class citizens at best while the West Bank and Gaza are respectively occupied and encroached upon and strangled economically - is legitimate, while calling for Jews living anywhere in the world to be harmed or forced from their homes is utterly disgusting and wrong. All states are simply political creations and it can never be wrong to question whether they are an appropriate mechanism for delivering security and happiness to their citizens. Defending human rights is what matters, not defending a specific form of political organisation. Now you may take the view that I do, that calling for Israel and the occupied territories to be replaced by a single secular state in which all people are free and equal citizens is a waste of time as it simply won't happen, but I don't think that it should be viewed as an extreme or hateful position to do so. There is plenty of unambiguously hateful and antisemitic abuse for the authorities to investigate, unfortunately, without trying to criminalise the use of a phrase that means different things to different people. I hate to think of Jewish people being upset on hearing the phrase and it's not one I have ever used myself in part for that reason, but I think that banning phrases because people get upset by them is a slippery slope to go down and not one I could support.
"calling into question the existence of Israel - as an explicitly Jewish state in which Arab Muslims and Christians are second class citizens at best while the West Bank and Gaza are respectively occupied and encroached upon and strangled economically - is legitimate,"
I think that's utterly wrong. Or at least, if you call the existence of Israel into question because it is a religious state, then why not call into existence other religious states, who treat citizens of other religions far worse than Israel does, and also interfere with neighbours.
On a very basic level, if a slogan is consistently and widely misunderstood, it’s not a very good slogan, so needs changing. If you’re concerned about the misunderstanding, of course.
If a slogan is being wilfully misinterpreted by people - or if one interpretation is being attributed to people who quite obviously are not using it in that way - isn't it possible that this is because there are people who object to all interpretations of the slogan, and are trying to shut down debate? In my view, calling into question the existence of Israel - as an explicitly Jewish state in which Arab Muslims and Christians are second class citizens at best while the West Bank and Gaza are respectively occupied and encroached upon and strangled economically - is legitimate, while calling for Jews living anywhere in the world to be harmed or forced from their homes is utterly disgusting and wrong. All states are simply political creations and it can never be wrong to question whether they are an appropriate mechanism for delivering security and happiness to their citizens. Defending human rights is what matters, not defending a specific form of political organisation. Now you may take the view that I do, that calling for Israel and the occupied territories to be replaced by a single secular state in which all people are free and equal citizens is a waste of time as it simply won't happen, but I don't think that it should be viewed as an extreme or hateful position to do so. There is plenty of unambiguously hateful and antisemitic abuse for the authorities to investigate, unfortunately, without trying to criminalise the use of a phrase that means different things to different people. I hate to think of Jewish people being upset on hearing the phrase and it's not one I have ever used myself in part for that reason, but I think that banning phrases because people get upset by them is a slippery slope to go down and not one I could support.
"calling into question the existence of Israel - as an explicitly Jewish state in which Arab Muslims and Christians are second class citizens at best while the West Bank and Gaza are respectively occupied and encroached upon and strangled economically - is legitimate,"
I think that's utterly wrong. Or at least, if you call the existence of Israel into question because it is a religious state, then why not call into existence other religious states, who treat citizens of other religions far worse than Israel does, and also interfere with neighbours.
Such as Iran.
Why is Israel different?
I think it's OK to question the existence of any state, especially one that treats minorities badly, like Iran, or Turkey or China for that matter.
I see this morning that the police put the group letting off fireworks yesterday at 150. So much for @Leon's tens of thousands. And @Casino_Royale thinks @Leon's hysterical reporting was reliable.
So higher than the number of hooligans arrested yet?
@Leon was right. It reflects badly on too many posters on here that they don't have the humility or integrity to admit it.
??? Tens of thousands compared to 150 makes @leon right? Honestly some people will defend any old nonsense.
Given the majority of the casuals went for a ruck (many of whom would be happy to have a go at plod) but the majority of the pro Hamas/pro gaza/pro ceasefire/anti Israel marchers/supporters didn’t then it is no surprise that the numbers are proportionally different. Leon’s point on the reporting was not unreasonable.
@leon claimed there were tens of thousands letting off fireworks. How is that reasonable and not hysterical?
He didn't say that.
Let me admit one other thing I got wrong (show you how it's done): up until about 9am yesterday I thought The March was planned *for today* to clash with the main Rememberance Sunday event, and the mass march past the cenotaph by thousands of veterans. I got that wrong and felt pretty silly about it - although I bet I wasn't the only one. Mea culpa.
You?
Lots of people thought that so don't worry about it. Completely reasonable.
Leon did say ten to fifteen thousand people. Love to admit I was wrong, but I'm not. He said it. He did.
You are being added to my idiots list.
Well done.
What you mean because I quoted @leon accurately and you cocked up. I mean not difficult to check. His post is there from yesterday. You seriously want me to say I got something wrong which clearly I didn't.
You are completely barking mad.
You’re very confident of my quote. Can you cut and paste it on here?
LOL
"The fireworks came from all over: I have the photos. The idea this was just "150" is comforting garbage
By the end it WAS down to a hardcore - of several thousand, maybe 10-15,000"
Do I say every single one of those 10-15,000 had fireworks? No, of course not. It would be physically impossible
I’m saying that the march reduced to about 10-15,000 who looked like they wanted trouble. And they found it in multiple places
“Pro Palestine protesters firing rocket fireworks up and down roads leading into Victoria. Zero police interjection. They are having fun now despite danger to public #remembranceday”
Given Remembrance Day is today that would be difficult ! And exactly what was disrupted yesterday in terms of the actual Cenotaph re the pro Palestinian march ?
The only disruption there was by hooligans and the EDL .
And I saw the EDL and they were pathetic racist thugs and i said so on here. Also quite fat
But there was 238 of them, not 30,000 or 300,000 - that’s the point
@leon hmmm…as a (relatively) neutral observer munching popcorn the morning after, you’ve been a bit skewres by @kjh here. Your ‘just 150’ followed by the next paragraph has a very clear implication.
Excellent barney, though, I’m thoroughly enjoying the repercussions, especially CR as the Robin to your Batman. Chapeau.
I mean, I really haven’t. But I’m beyond caring now. More interestingly, I’ve just discovered on TwiX why PB is the way it is, and sometimes SO annoying - for me at least
“Something happens with highly intelligent people (140IQ+) which is interesting. People within the range of average to above average (100IQ-125IQ) struggle to recognize them, but people who are average to slightly below average (85IQ-99IQ) recognize them almost instantly.”
Most of PB is 100-125 IQ. You therefore struggle to understand me; meantime I get frustrated because I presume you can swiftly infer things the way I can. But you can’t, you can’t make the obvious logical leaps, you need to be talked through it and have it explained (tediously, for me)
Hence we get these dialogues of the deaf. This weekend is an example
That IS more interesting.
But given that Muskian Twixter is almost all nonsense, I’ll take it under advisement.
Alastair Meeks @AlastairMeeks · 1h The timing doesn't work. To hold an election before Christmas the election would need to be called by Thursday. The decision comes out on Wednesday.
Holding an election voluntarily that spanned Christmas and New Year would be "courageous".
On a very basic level, if a slogan is consistently and widely misunderstood, it’s not a very good slogan, so needs changing. If you’re concerned about the misunderstanding, of course.
If a slogan is being wilfully misinterpreted by people - or if one interpretation is being attributed to people who quite obviously are not using it in that way - isn't it possible that this is because there are people who object to all interpretations of the slogan, and are trying to shut down debate? In my view, calling into question the existence of Israel - as an explicitly Jewish state in which Arab Muslims and Christians are second class citizens at best while the West Bank and Gaza are respectively occupied and encroached upon and strangled economically - is legitimate, while calling for Jews living anywhere in the world to be harmed or forced from their homes is utterly disgusting and wrong. All states are simply political creations and it can never be wrong to question whether they are an appropriate mechanism for delivering security and happiness to their citizens. Defending human rights is what matters, not defending a specific form of political organisation. Now you may take the view that I do, that calling for Israel and the occupied territories to be replaced by a single secular state in which all people are free and equal citizens is a waste of time as it simply won't happen, but I don't think that it should be viewed as an extreme or hateful position to do so. There is plenty of unambiguously hateful and antisemitic abuse for the authorities to investigate, unfortunately, without trying to criminalise the use of a phrase that means different things to different people. I hate to think of Jewish people being upset on hearing the phrase and it's not one I have ever used myself in part for that reason, but I think that banning phrases because people get upset by them is a slippery slope to go down and not one I could support.
"calling into question the existence of Israel - as an explicitly Jewish state in which Arab Muslims and Christians are second class citizens at best while the West Bank and Gaza are respectively occupied and encroached upon and strangled economically - is legitimate,"
I think that's utterly wrong. Or at least, if you call the existence of Israel into question because it is a religious state, then why not call into existence other religious states, who treat citizens of other religions far worse than Israel does, and also interfere with neighbours.
Such as Iran.
Why is Israel different?
I think it's OK to question the existence of any state, especially one that treats minorities badly, like Iran, or Turkey or China for that matter.
When that state is the only safe haven for a historically persecuted people I don’t think it’s OK. I would put Armenia, Ireland, Timor Leste, South Sudan, and a future Kurdistan and Tibet in that category too.
On a very basic level, if a slogan is consistently and widely misunderstood, it’s not a very good slogan, so needs changing. If you’re concerned about the misunderstanding, of course.
If a slogan is being wilfully misinterpreted by people - or if one interpretation is being attributed to people who quite obviously are not using it in that way - isn't it possible that this is because there are people who object to all interpretations of the slogan, and are trying to shut down debate? In my view, calling into question the existence of Israel - as an explicitly Jewish state in which Arab Muslims and Christians are second class citizens at best while the West Bank and Gaza are respectively occupied and encroached upon and strangled economically - is legitimate, while calling for Jews living anywhere in the world to be harmed or forced from their homes is utterly disgusting and wrong. All states are simply political creations and it can never be wrong to question whether they are an appropriate mechanism for delivering security and happiness to their citizens. Defending human rights is what matters, not defending a specific form of political organisation. Now you may take the view that I do, that calling for Israel and the occupied territories to be replaced by a single secular state in which all people are free and equal citizens is a waste of time as it simply won't happen, but I don't think that it should be viewed as an extreme or hateful position to do so. There is plenty of unambiguously hateful and antisemitic abuse for the authorities to investigate, unfortunately, without trying to criminalise the use of a phrase that means different things to different people. I hate to think of Jewish people being upset on hearing the phrase and it's not one I have ever used myself in part for that reason, but I think that banning phrases because people get upset by them is a slippery slope to go down and not one I could support.
"calling into question the existence of Israel - as an explicitly Jewish state in which Arab Muslims and Christians are second class citizens at best while the West Bank and Gaza are respectively occupied and encroached upon and strangled economically - is legitimate,"
I think that's utterly wrong. Or at least, if you call the existence of Israel into question because it is a religious state, then why not call into existence other religious states, who treat citizens of other religions far worse than Israel does, and also interfere with neighbours.
Such as Iran.
Why is Israel different?
I think it's OK to question the existence of any state, especially one that treats minorities badly, like Iran, or Turkey or China for that matter.
There's a world of difference between pointing out that a state might treat minorities badly, and saying that questions their right to exist. IMO it's a stupid argument, and one that will not stop those states from treating their minorities poorly.
And again, why does Israel get the opprobrium, when other countries are worse; sometimes far worse?
I see this morning that the police put the group letting off fireworks yesterday at 150. So much for @Leon's tens of thousands. And @Casino_Royale thinks @Leon's hysterical reporting was reliable.
So higher than the number of hooligans arrested yet?
@Leon was right. It reflects badly on too many posters on here that they don't have the humility or integrity to admit it.
??? Tens of thousands compared to 150 makes @leon right? Honestly some people will defend any old nonsense.
Given the majority of the casuals went for a ruck (many of whom would be happy to have a go at plod) but the majority of the pro Hamas/pro gaza/pro ceasefire/anti Israel marchers/supporters didn’t then it is no surprise that the numbers are proportionally different. Leon’s point on the reporting was not unreasonable.
@leon claimed there were tens of thousands letting off fireworks. How is that reasonable and not hysterical?
He didn't say that.
Let me admit one other thing I got wrong (show you how it's done): up until about 9am yesterday I thought The March was planned *for today* to clash with the main Rememberance Sunday event, and the mass march past the cenotaph by thousands of veterans. I got that wrong and felt pretty silly about it - although I bet I wasn't the only one. Mea culpa.
You?
Lots of people thought that so don't worry about it. Completely reasonable.
Leon did say ten to fifteen thousand people. Love to admit I was wrong, but I'm not. He said it. He did.
You are being added to my idiots list.
Well done.
What you mean because I quoted @leon accurately and you cocked up. I mean not difficult to check. His post is there from yesterday. You seriously want me to say I got something wrong which clearly I didn't.
You are completely barking mad.
You’re very confident of my quote. Can you cut and paste it on here?
LOL
"The fireworks came from all over: I have the photos. The idea this was just "150" is comforting garbage
By the end it WAS down to a hardcore - of several thousand, maybe 10-15,000"
Do I say every single one of those 10-15,000 had fireworks? No, of course not. It would be physically impossible
I’m saying that the march reduced to about 10-15,000 who looked like they wanted trouble. And they found it in multiple places
“Pro Palestine protesters firing rocket fireworks up and down roads leading into Victoria. Zero police interjection. They are having fun now despite danger to public #remembranceday”
Given Remembrance Day is today that would be difficult ! And exactly what was disrupted yesterday in terms of the actual Cenotaph re the pro Palestinian march ?
The only disruption there was by hooligans and the EDL .
And I saw the EDL and they were pathetic racist thugs and i said so on here. Also quite fat
But there was 238 of them, not 30,000 or 300,000 - that’s the point
@leon hmmm…as a (relatively) neutral observer munching popcorn the morning after, you’ve been a bit skewres by @kjh here. Your ‘just 150’ followed by the next paragraph has a very clear implication.
Excellent barney, though, I’m thoroughly enjoying the repercussions, especially CR as the Robin to your Batman. Chapeau.
I mean, I really haven’t. But I’m beyond caring now. More interestingly, I’ve just discovered on TwiX why PB is the way it is, and sometimes SO annoying - for me at least
“Something happens with highly intelligent people (140IQ+) which is interesting. People within the range of average to above average (100IQ-125IQ) struggle to recognize them, but people who are average to slightly below average (85IQ-99IQ) recognize them almost instantly.”
Most of PB is 100-125 IQ. You therefore struggle to understand me; meantime I get frustrated because I presume you can swiftly infer things the way I can. But you can’t, you can’t make the obvious logical leaps, you need to be talked through it and have it explained (tediously, for me)
Hence we get these dialogues of the deaf. This weekend is an example
I suppose it's possible.
Though the alternative is that this salon is the smartest one in town, and is one of the few places where people understand you (or your writing persona, anyway) all too well.
On a very basic level, if a slogan is consistently and widely misunderstood, it’s not a very good slogan, so needs changing. If you’re concerned about the misunderstanding, of course.
If a slogan is being wilfully misinterpreted by people - or if one interpretation is being attributed to people who quite obviously are not using it in that way - isn't it possible that this is because there are people who object to all interpretations of the slogan, and are trying to shut down debate? In my view, calling into question the existence of Israel - as an explicitly Jewish state in which Arab Muslims and Christians are second class citizens at best while the West Bank and Gaza are respectively occupied and encroached upon and strangled economically - is legitimate, while calling for Jews living anywhere in the world to be harmed or forced from their homes is utterly disgusting and wrong. All states are simply political creations and it can never be wrong to question whether they are an appropriate mechanism for delivering security and happiness to their citizens. Defending human rights is what matters, not defending a specific form of political organisation. Now you may take the view that I do, that calling for Israel and the occupied territories to be replaced by a single secular state in which all people are free and equal citizens is a waste of time as it simply won't happen, but I don't think that it should be viewed as an extreme or hateful position to do so. There is plenty of unambiguously hateful and antisemitic abuse for the authorities to investigate, unfortunately, without trying to criminalise the use of a phrase that means different things to different people. I hate to think of Jewish people being upset on hearing the phrase and it's not one I have ever used myself in part for that reason, but I think that banning phrases because people get upset by them is a slippery slope to go down and not one I could support.
"calling into question the existence of Israel - as an explicitly Jewish state in which Arab Muslims and Christians are second class citizens at best while the West Bank and Gaza are respectively occupied and encroached upon and strangled economically - is legitimate,"
I think that's utterly wrong. Or at least, if you call the existence of Israel into question because it is a religious state, then why not call into existence other religious states, who treat citizens of other religions far worse than Israel does, and also interfere with neighbours.
Such as Iran.
Why is Israel different?
Not sure that’s the best example.
The Iranian state should definitely be called into question! And is being by protesters that are being brutalised.
Leon - anything incorrect or just selective reporting that you are complaining about?
Deeply selective reporting
No mention that the pro-Palestinians were shooting fireworks at the faces of the cops, by the end
No mention of the attempted stabbings, the menacing gangs, the mobbing of Gove, the cars driving around full of people shouting at Jews
That is the summary from the Live page. If we look instead at the BBC's main story, it does mention Gove (with video), the PM condemning both sides, and the police issuing three pictures of pro-Palestine marchers they want to identify. It says there have been 188 hate crime arrests, most for antisemitic offences, since 7th October. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67390514
The only real complaint I can see about the BBC Live reporting Leon complains about is that this refers to a splinter group of pro-Palestine marchers but that is not mentioned in the summary: Officers also intercepted a group of 150. Arrests were made after some of the fireworks struck officers in the face
However scrolling down finds a fuller account which is:- Arrests made after officers struck by fireworks - police Earlier we reported that officers detained a breakaway group of about 150 people from the pro-Palestinian demonstration.
The statement from the assistant commissioner says the group of 150 were "wearing face coverings and firing fireworks".
He says "arrests were made" after some officers were struck in the face with fireworks.
His statement adds that the Met will be publishing images people suspected to have committed offences, such as showing support for UK proscribed terrorist organisations, including Hamas.
And earlier than that, where it becomes clear the BBC reporters did not see this first-hand:-
We've had another update from the Metropolitan Police to say that officers have detained a breakaway group of around 150 people from the pro-Palestinian demonstration.
The group in Grosvenor Place in Belgravia were firing fireworks and many are wearing face coverings, the force says in a post on X, formerly Twitter.
Officers are detaining and searching those involved under Section 60 and 60AA powers, the Met adds.
The Met is using the word detained in its statement, but this may not be the same as being arrested. BBC News is asking the Met for more information.
Channel 4 news partiality, or lack of it, is certainly not a surprise. It’s becoming a bit of a left of centre GB News.
There was a group of casuals detained by the police yesterday to prevent a breach of the peace.
People who call all casuals neo nazi or far right are wrong. Some will be.
Most just turn up for,a ruck and a pissup. They were even brawling among themselves. Their politics goes across the whole spectrum. They just like a tear up.
I'm amused by the way Linekar and others are complaining about them being called "Football Hooligans". Their clubs might not have been playing, but they are organised through the diseased sport he earns millions from us to speak cr@p about.
My son and his U15 team play every week, they train twice a week. Every weekend hundreds of thousands of mostly young people give their all, getting fresh air and exercise and learning about teamwork and dedication. Millions watch games, enjoying the excitement and spectacle of a beautiful game that enjoys global appeal. A few frustrated, angry, violent men who attach themselves to the game for the purpose of violence do not represent it. Diseased sport my arse.
Josias has an irrational hatred of our national game, and knows sod all about it. He is best ignored on this topic.
It's really not irrational. And whilst some may see it as "our national game", that does not mean that it has to define our nation. Especially as most of the nation don't follow it, perhaps aside from 'special' games.
Football has massive issues, both nationally and internationally. Ignoring those issues, or turning a blind eye to them, does the sport, and its fans, no good.
You know nothing about football. A period of silence from you on this matter would be welcome.
LOL. Nah. Why are you so keen to defend the sport? Are you saying that it has no issues; that there are not deep problems within it? If so, then I'd argue you know nothing about the sport. And if you just want to silence voices pointing out those issues, then you too have issues.
You seek to slur a game enjoyed by literally millions every weekend. Before you embarrass yourself further, start with some simple mathematics. How many people watch football on an average weekend compared to rugby or cricket? Once you have done your sums come back to me.
And your point is? Does that make the problems in the sport automagically disappear?
I guess you're in the category in the last line in my previous post.
My point is that it’s a tiny proportion of people among millions who watch the game every weekend, orders of magnitude more than watch rugby or cricket, which are niche sports in comparison. As with any mass attended event, you will get some trouble occasionally. But you know this, your personal biases against football are compromising your ability to do simple mathematics.
On a very basic level, if a slogan is consistently and widely misunderstood, it’s not a very good slogan, so needs changing. If you’re concerned about the misunderstanding, of course.
If a slogan is being wilfully misinterpreted by people - or if one interpretation is being attributed to people who quite obviously are not using it in that way - isn't it possible that this is because there are people who object to all interpretations of the slogan, and are trying to shut down debate? In my view, calling into question the existence of Israel - as an explicitly Jewish state in which Arab Muslims and Christians are second class citizens at best while the West Bank and Gaza are respectively occupied and encroached upon and strangled economically - is legitimate, while calling for Jews living anywhere in the world to be harmed or forced from their homes is utterly disgusting and wrong. All states are simply political creations and it can never be wrong to question whether they are an appropriate mechanism for delivering security and happiness to their citizens. Defending human rights is what matters, not defending a specific form of political organisation. Now you may take the view that I do, that calling for Israel and the occupied territories to be replaced by a single secular state in which all people are free and equal citizens is a waste of time as it simply won't happen, but I don't think that it should be viewed as an extreme or hateful position to do so. There is plenty of unambiguously hateful and antisemitic abuse for the authorities to investigate, unfortunately, without trying to criminalise the use of a phrase that means different things to different people. I hate to think of Jewish people being upset on hearing the phrase and it's not one I have ever used myself in part for that reason, but I think that banning phrases because people get upset by them is a slippery slope to go down and not one I could support.
"calling into question the existence of Israel - as an explicitly Jewish state in which Arab Muslims and Christians are second class citizens at best while the West Bank and Gaza are respectively occupied and encroached upon and strangled economically - is legitimate,"
I think that's utterly wrong. Or at least, if you call the existence of Israel into question because it is a religious state, then why not call into existence other religious states, who treat citizens of other religions far worse than Israel does, and also interfere with neighbours.
Such as Iran.
Why is Israel different?
Not sure that’s the best example.
The Iranian state should definitely be called into question! And is being by protesters that are being brutalised.
Nobody is calling into question the existence of an Iranian state. They are challenging the regime. That’s different. I think we all agree Israel would be better off without the revolting Netanyahu and his far right mates.
Iran and its predecessor Persia have been a nation-state for longer than almost any, bar China, Greece and one or two others.
I cannot see many being swayed by it. I also expect it to deter as many as it attracts. Most people are bothered by standard of living. We’re poorer than we were five years ago. That will finish them and if Braverman is the answer to the Tories problems then they are doomed for a generation.
Looks in. Very grumpy. Decides to go off and read an interesting new book on spigot mortars.
Oooh, which book is that? I've been fascinated by them since my old flat south of Cambridge had the base of one outside it, the stainless steel pin still immaculate. I occasionally find bases on walks or runs, including one by the river in Ely.
Looks back in after finishing an email, goes off again ... ah!
Chrome or stainless or anyway shiny pin on a round concrete block? ISTR seeing them on the defence line along the Kennet and Avon Canal once. That must be the Blacker Bombard IIRC which indeed is covered. I haven't got that far (or indeed very far, so IANAE on the book, but it seems to be based on primary documents. Might be up @Malmesbury 's street too so I'll add him in.
Above the roof of the car, to the right of the hedge. I assume the buildings around it are more modern, as there's little point in having it there now. I also assume it was to defend the area around the rail bridge and the two railway lines.
I suppose in defence of Sunak not sacking Braverman yet .
He didn’t want to overshadow the events surrounding Remembrance.
There is no defence after this weekend and he should get rid of her before the SC ruling . She certainly won’t accept a demotion so if he tries that she’ll just resign from the cabinet .
“Pro Palestine protesters firing rocket fireworks up and down roads leading into Victoria. Zero police interjection. They are having fun now despite danger to public #remembranceday”
Leon - anything incorrect or just selective reporting that you are complaining about?
Deeply selective reporting
No mention that the pro-Palestinians were shooting fireworks at the faces of the cops, by the end
No mention of the attempted stabbings, the menacing gangs, the mobbing of Gove, the cars driving around full of people shouting at Jews
That is the summary from the Live page. If we look instead at the BBC's main story, it does mention Gove (with video), the PM condemning both sides, and the police issuing three pictures of pro-Palestine marchers they want to identify. It says there have been 188 hate crime arrests, most for antisemitic offences, since 7th October. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67390514
The only real complaint I can see about the BBC Live reporting Leon complains about is that this refers to a splinter group of pro-Palestine marchers but that is not mentioned in the summary: Officers also intercepted a group of 150. Arrests were made after some of the fireworks struck officers in the face
However scrolling down finds a fuller account which is:- Arrests made after officers struck by fireworks - police Earlier we reported that officers detained a breakaway group of about 150 people from the pro-Palestinian demonstration.
The statement from the assistant commissioner says the group of 150 were "wearing face coverings and firing fireworks".
He says "arrests were made" after some officers were struck in the face with fireworks.
His statement adds that the Met will be publishing images people suspected to have committed offences, such as showing support for UK proscribed terrorist organisations, including Hamas.
And earlier than that, where it becomes clear the BBC reporters did not see this first-hand:-
We've had another update from the Metropolitan Police to say that officers have detained a breakaway group of around 150 people from the pro-Palestinian demonstration.
The group in Grosvenor Place in Belgravia were firing fireworks and many are wearing face coverings, the force says in a post on X, formerly Twitter.
Officers are detaining and searching those involved under Section 60 and 60AA powers, the Met adds.
The Met is using the word detained in its statement, but this may not be the same as being arrested. BBC News is asking the Met for more information.
Channel 4 news partiality, or lack of it, is certainly not a surprise. It’s becoming a bit of a left of centre GB News.
There was a group of casuals detained by the police yesterday to prevent a breach of the peace.
People who call all casuals neo nazi or far right are wrong. Some will be.
Most just turn up for,a ruck and a pissup. They were even brawling among themselves. Their politics goes across the whole spectrum. They just like a tear up.
I'm amused by the way Linekar and others are complaining about them being called "Football Hooligans". Their clubs might not have been playing, but they are organised through the diseased sport he earns millions from us to speak cr@p about.
My son and his U15 team play every week, they train twice a week. Every weekend hundreds of thousands of mostly young people give their all, getting fresh air and exercise and learning about teamwork and dedication. Millions watch games, enjoying the excitement and spectacle of a beautiful game that enjoys global appeal. A few frustrated, angry, violent men who attach themselves to the game for the purpose of violence do not represent it. Diseased sport my arse.
Josias has an irrational hatred of our national game, and knows sod all about it. He is best ignored on this topic.
It's really not irrational. And whilst some may see it as "our national game", that does not mean that it has to define our nation. Especially as most of the nation don't follow it, perhaps aside from 'special' games.
Football has massive issues, both nationally and internationally. Ignoring those issues, or turning a blind eye to them, does the sport, and its fans, no good.
You know nothing about football. A period of silence from you on this matter would be welcome.
LOL. Nah. Why are you so keen to defend the sport? Are you saying that it has no issues; that there are not deep problems within it? If so, then I'd argue you know nothing about the sport. And if you just want to silence voices pointing out those issues, then you too have issues.
You seek to slur a game enjoyed by literally millions every weekend. Before you embarrass yourself further, start with some simple mathematics. How many people watch football on an average weekend compared to rugby or cricket? Once you have done your sums come back to me.
And your point is? Does that make the problems in the sport automagically disappear?
I guess you're in the category in the last line in my previous post.
My point is that it’s a tiny proportion of people among millions who watch the game every weekend, orders of magnitude more than watch rugby or cricket, which are niche sports in comparison. As with any mass attended event, you will get some trouble occasionally. But you know this, your personal biases against football are compromising your ability to do simple mathematics.
Great question though - what sport has the most dangerous fans?
On a very basic level, if a slogan is consistently and widely misunderstood, it’s not a very good slogan, so needs changing. If you’re concerned about the misunderstanding, of course.
If a slogan is being wilfully misinterpreted by people - or if one interpretation is being attributed to people who quite obviously are not using it in that way - isn't it possible that this is because there are people who object to all interpretations of the slogan, and are trying to shut down debate? In my view, calling into question the existence of Israel - as an explicitly Jewish state in which Arab Muslims and Christians are second class citizens at best while the West Bank and Gaza are respectively occupied and encroached upon and strangled economically - is legitimate, while calling for Jews living anywhere in the world to be harmed or forced from their homes is utterly disgusting and wrong. All states are simply political creations and it can never be wrong to question whether they are an appropriate mechanism for delivering security and happiness to their citizens. Defending human rights is what matters, not defending a specific form of political organisation. Now you may take the view that I do, that calling for Israel and the occupied territories to be replaced by a single secular state in which all people are free and equal citizens is a waste of time as it simply won't happen, but I don't think that it should be viewed as an extreme or hateful position to do so. There is plenty of unambiguously hateful and antisemitic abuse for the authorities to investigate, unfortunately, without trying to criminalise the use of a phrase that means different things to different people. I hate to think of Jewish people being upset on hearing the phrase and it's not one I have ever used myself in part for that reason, but I think that banning phrases because people get upset by them is a slippery slope to go down and not one I could support.
"calling into question the existence of Israel - as an explicitly Jewish state in which Arab Muslims and Christians are second class citizens at best while the West Bank and Gaza are respectively occupied and encroached upon and strangled economically - is legitimate,"
I think that's utterly wrong. Or at least, if you call the existence of Israel into question because it is a religious state, then why not call into existence other religious states, who treat citizens of other religions far worse than Israel does, and also interfere with neighbours.
Such as Iran.
Why is Israel different?
As far as I know, Israeli Arabs and Christians have equal voting rights, and are not blocked from any major offices of state because of their religion. Yes, Israel was set up for Jewish people and the religion plays a central role in the state but it is certainly not a religious state, as is Iran - if that was the case, to take one example, you would not see such a vibrant LGBTQ+ lifestyle.
Now if the poster wants to question Israel's right to exist, that is your right but you seem fairly non-understanding / non-fussed as to the historic conditions that led to the creation of Israel.
I think what really winds me up most about the sort of post re questioning of Israel's right to exist is the double standards often showed by such posters. Questioning Jewish Israel's right to exist is all fine and easy to state but start raising questions about theocratic Muslim states such as Iran or why Hamas butchering unarmed people is just wrong with no need for a "but..." and we start to get all the equivocation, talk about "context" and that the situation is "complex" and that Islamophobia is on the rise.
On the last point, btw, does anyone know of any attacks on Mosques, Muslims etc specifically due to what is happening in the Middle East? The anti-Jewish intimidation has been well documented but I have not read anything in the regional or national press of actual incidents.
On a very basic level, if a slogan is consistently and widely misunderstood, it’s not a very good slogan, so needs changing. If you’re concerned about the misunderstanding, of course.
If a slogan is being wilfully misinterpreted by people - or if one interpretation is being attributed to people who quite obviously are not using it in that way - isn't it possible that this is because there are people who object to all interpretations of the slogan, and are trying to shut down debate? In my view, calling into question the existence of Israel - as an explicitly Jewish state in which Arab Muslims and Christians are second class citizens at best while the West Bank and Gaza are respectively occupied and encroached upon and strangled economically - is legitimate, while calling for Jews living anywhere in the world to be harmed or forced from their homes is utterly disgusting and wrong. All states are simply political creations and it can never be wrong to question whether they are an appropriate mechanism for delivering security and happiness to their citizens. Defending human rights is what matters, not defending a specific form of political organisation. Now you may take the view that I do, that calling for Israel and the occupied territories to be replaced by a single secular state in which all people are free and equal citizens is a waste of time as it simply won't happen, but I don't think that it should be viewed as an extreme or hateful position to do so. There is plenty of unambiguously hateful and antisemitic abuse for the authorities to investigate, unfortunately, without trying to criminalise the use of a phrase that means different things to different people. I hate to think of Jewish people being upset on hearing the phrase and it's not one I have ever used myself in part for that reason, but I think that banning phrases because people get upset by them is a slippery slope to go down and not one I could support.
"calling into question the existence of Israel - as an explicitly Jewish state in which Arab Muslims and Christians are second class citizens at best while the West Bank and Gaza are respectively occupied and encroached upon and strangled economically - is legitimate,"
I think that's utterly wrong. Or at least, if you call the existence of Israel into question because it is a religious state, then why not call into existence other religious states, who treat citizens of other religions far worse than Israel does, and also interfere with neighbours.
Such as Iran.
Why is Israel different?
Not sure that’s the best example.
The Iranian state should definitely be called into question! And is being by protesters that are being brutalised.
Nobody is calling into question the existence of an Iranian state. They are challenging the regime. That’s different. I think we all agree Israel would be better off without the revolting Netanyahu and his far right mates.
Iran and its predecessor Persia have been a nation-state for longer than almost any, bar China, Greece and one or two others.
I think, though am not 100% sure (and happy to be corrected) that you’re confusing a nation with a state.
The Iranian nation (or the nation that has existed within those approximate borders for thousands of years) cannot and should not be questioned. Nor should the Israeli nation.
The Iranian state is in my view illegitimate and could legitimately be replaced by an alternative way of leading the Iranian nation.
ETA: in particular I was responding to JJ’s characterisation of Israel as a ‘religious state’. Iran can be similarly characterised and I think in Iran’s case (and arguably in Israel’s) that religious element is what has become over time so illegitimate.
Leon - anything incorrect or just selective reporting that you are complaining about?
Deeply selective reporting
No mention that the pro-Palestinians were shooting fireworks at the faces of the cops, by the end
No mention of the attempted stabbings, the menacing gangs, the mobbing of Gove, the cars driving around full of people shouting at Jews
That is the summary from the Live page. If we look instead at the BBC's main story, it does mention Gove (with video), the PM condemning both sides, and the police issuing three pictures of pro-Palestine marchers they want to identify. It says there have been 188 hate crime arrests, most for antisemitic offences, since 7th October. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67390514
The only real complaint I can see about the BBC Live reporting Leon complains about is that this refers to a splinter group of pro-Palestine marchers but that is not mentioned in the summary: Officers also intercepted a group of 150. Arrests were made after some of the fireworks struck officers in the face
However scrolling down finds a fuller account which is:- Arrests made after officers struck by fireworks - police Earlier we reported that officers detained a breakaway group of about 150 people from the pro-Palestinian demonstration.
The statement from the assistant commissioner says the group of 150 were "wearing face coverings and firing fireworks".
He says "arrests were made" after some officers were struck in the face with fireworks.
His statement adds that the Met will be publishing images people suspected to have committed offences, such as showing support for UK proscribed terrorist organisations, including Hamas.
And earlier than that, where it becomes clear the BBC reporters did not see this first-hand:-
We've had another update from the Metropolitan Police to say that officers have detained a breakaway group of around 150 people from the pro-Palestinian demonstration.
The group in Grosvenor Place in Belgravia were firing fireworks and many are wearing face coverings, the force says in a post on X, formerly Twitter.
Officers are detaining and searching those involved under Section 60 and 60AA powers, the Met adds.
The Met is using the word detained in its statement, but this may not be the same as being arrested. BBC News is asking the Met for more information.
Channel 4 news partiality, or lack of it, is certainly not a surprise. It’s becoming a bit of a left of centre GB News.
There was a group of casuals detained by the police yesterday to prevent a breach of the peace.
People who call all casuals neo nazi or far right are wrong. Some will be.
Most just turn up for,a ruck and a pissup. They were even brawling among themselves. Their politics goes across the whole spectrum. They just like a tear up.
I'm amused by the way Linekar and others are complaining about them being called "Football Hooligans". Their clubs might not have been playing, but they are organised through the diseased sport he earns millions from us to speak cr@p about.
My son and his U15 team play every week, they train twice a week. Every weekend hundreds of thousands of mostly young people give their all, getting fresh air and exercise and learning about teamwork and dedication. Millions watch games, enjoying the excitement and spectacle of a beautiful game that enjoys global appeal. A few frustrated, angry, violent men who attach themselves to the game for the purpose of violence do not represent it. Diseased sport my arse.
Josias has an irrational hatred of our national game, and knows sod all about it. He is best ignored on this topic.
It's really not irrational. And whilst some may see it as "our national game", that does not mean that it has to define our nation. Especially as most of the nation don't follow it, perhaps aside from 'special' games.
Football has massive issues, both nationally and internationally. Ignoring those issues, or turning a blind eye to them, does the sport, and its fans, no good.
You know nothing about football. A period of silence from you on this matter would be welcome.
LOL. Nah. Why are you so keen to defend the sport? Are you saying that it has no issues; that there are not deep problems within it? If so, then I'd argue you know nothing about the sport. And if you just want to silence voices pointing out those issues, then you too have issues.
You seek to slur a game enjoyed by literally millions every weekend. Before you embarrass yourself further, start with some simple mathematics. How many people watch football on an average weekend compared to rugby or cricket? Once you have done your sums come back to me.
And your point is? Does that make the problems in the sport automagically disappear?
I guess you're in the category in the last line in my previous post.
My point is that it’s a tiny proportion of people among millions who watch the game every weekend, orders of magnitude more than watch rugby or cricket, which are niche sports in comparison. As with any mass attended event, you will get some trouble occasionally. But you know this, your personal biases against football are compromising your ability to do simple mathematics.
The problem is that it's not 'occasional' trouble, is it? I used to live near Chelsea's ground (near enough to hear the roars when there was a goal), and being on the streets on a match afternoon was sometimes rather unpleasant. Especially for women (some of the catcalls in particular). But I bet that's okay, just men being men?
Then there's the absolute fraud and corruption in the sport, which you ignore.
I suppose in defence of Sunak not sacking Braverman yet .
He didn’t want to overshadow the events surrounding Remembrance.
There is no defence after this weekend and he should get rid of her before the SC ruling . She certainly won’t accept a demotion so if he tries that she’ll just resign from the cabinet .
Defence secretary Michael Green was on Sky earlier. Implied she was a goner. Trevor Phillips said: “Will she still be home secretary by next weekend?”
Green replied: “A week is a long time in politics.”
Books Late Soviet Britain: Why Materialist Utopias Fail The UK's Changing Democracy: The 2018 Democratic Audit The Future of Trust: part of Melville House UK’s new FUTURES series How Did Britain Come to This?: A century of systemic failures of governance
On a very basic level, if a slogan is consistently and widely misunderstood, it’s not a very good slogan, so needs changing. If you’re concerned about the misunderstanding, of course.
If a slogan is being wilfully misinterpreted by people - or if one interpretation is being attributed to people who quite obviously are not using it in that way - isn't it possible that this is because there are people who object to all interpretations of the slogan, and are trying to shut down debate? In my view, calling into question the existence of Israel - as an explicitly Jewish state in which Arab Muslims and Christians are second class citizens at best while the West Bank and Gaza are respectively occupied and encroached upon and strangled economically - is legitimate, while calling for Jews living anywhere in the world to be harmed or forced from their homes is utterly disgusting and wrong. All states are simply political creations and it can never be wrong to question whether they are an appropriate mechanism for delivering security and happiness to their citizens. Defending human rights is what matters, not defending a specific form of political organisation. Now you may take the view that I do, that calling for Israel and the occupied territories to be replaced by a single secular state in which all people are free and equal citizens is a waste of time as it simply won't happen, but I don't think that it should be viewed as an extreme or hateful position to do so. There is plenty of unambiguously hateful and antisemitic abuse for the authorities to investigate, unfortunately, without trying to criminalise the use of a phrase that means different things to different people. I hate to think of Jewish people being upset on hearing the phrase and it's not one I have ever used myself in part for that reason, but I think that banning phrases because people get upset by them is a slippery slope to go down and not one I could support.
"calling into question the existence of Israel - as an explicitly Jewish state in which Arab Muslims and Christians are second class citizens at best while the West Bank and Gaza are respectively occupied and encroached upon and strangled economically - is legitimate,"
I think that's utterly wrong. Or at least, if you call the existence of Israel into question because it is a religious state, then why not call into existence other religious states, who treat citizens of other religions far worse than Israel does, and also interfere with neighbours.
Such as Iran.
Why is Israel different?
Not sure that’s the best example.
The Iranian state should definitely be called into question! And is being by protesters that are being brutalised.
Nobody is calling into question the existence of an Iranian state. They are challenging the regime. That’s different. I think we all agree Israel would be better off without the revolting Netanyahu and his far right mates.
Iran and its predecessor Persia have been a nation-state for longer than almost any, bar China, Greece and one or two others.
Iran is somewhere between a nation state and the remnants of the ancient Persian empire.
About a third of Iran's population are Azeri, Kurds, Arabs, Balochi, Turkoman and others.
Rather similar to Russia - neither of whom attract the interest of 'anti-colonial' posturers.
“Pro Palestine protesters firing rocket fireworks up and down roads leading into Victoria. Zero police interjection. They are having fun now despite danger to public #remembranceday”
Leon - anything incorrect or just selective reporting that you are complaining about?
Deeply selective reporting
No mention that the pro-Palestinians were shooting fireworks at the faces of the cops, by the end
No mention of the attempted stabbings, the menacing gangs, the mobbing of Gove, the cars driving around full of people shouting at Jews
That is the summary from the Live page. If we look instead at the BBC's main story, it does mention Gove (with video), the PM condemning both sides, and the police issuing three pictures of pro-Palestine marchers they want to identify. It says there have been 188 hate crime arrests, most for antisemitic offences, since 7th October. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67390514
The only real complaint I can see about the BBC Live reporting Leon complains about is that this refers to a splinter group of pro-Palestine marchers but that is not mentioned in the summary: Officers also intercepted a group of 150. Arrests were made after some of the fireworks struck officers in the face
However scrolling down finds a fuller account which is:- Arrests made after officers struck by fireworks - police Earlier we reported that officers detained a breakaway group of about 150 people from the pro-Palestinian demonstration.
The statement from the assistant commissioner says the group of 150 were "wearing face coverings and firing fireworks".
He says "arrests were made" after some officers were struck in the face with fireworks.
His statement adds that the Met will be publishing images people suspected to have committed offences, such as showing support for UK proscribed terrorist organisations, including Hamas.
And earlier than that, where it becomes clear the BBC reporters did not see this first-hand:-
We've had another update from the Metropolitan Police to say that officers have detained a breakaway group of around 150 people from the pro-Palestinian demonstration.
The group in Grosvenor Place in Belgravia were firing fireworks and many are wearing face coverings, the force says in a post on X, formerly Twitter.
Officers are detaining and searching those involved under Section 60 and 60AA powers, the Met adds.
The Met is using the word detained in its statement, but this may not be the same as being arrested. BBC News is asking the Met for more information.
Channel 4 news partiality, or lack of it, is certainly not a surprise. It’s becoming a bit of a left of centre GB News.
There was a group of casuals detained by the police yesterday to prevent a breach of the peace.
People who call all casuals neo nazi or far right are wrong. Some will be.
Most just turn up for,a ruck and a pissup. They were even brawling among themselves. Their politics goes across the whole spectrum. They just like a tear up.
I'm amused by the way Linekar and others are complaining about them being called "Football Hooligans". Their clubs might not have been playing, but they are organised through the diseased sport he earns millions from us to speak cr@p about.
My son and his U15 team play every week, they train twice a week. Every weekend hundreds of thousands of mostly young people give their all, getting fresh air and exercise and learning about teamwork and dedication. Millions watch games, enjoying the excitement and spectacle of a beautiful game that enjoys global appeal. A few frustrated, angry, violent men who attach themselves to the game for the purpose of violence do not represent it. Diseased sport my arse.
Josias has an irrational hatred of our national game, and knows sod all about it. He is best ignored on this topic.
It's really not irrational. And whilst some may see it as "our national game", that does not mean that it has to define our nation. Especially as most of the nation don't follow it, perhaps aside from 'special' games.
Football has massive issues, both nationally and internationally. Ignoring those issues, or turning a blind eye to them, does the sport, and its fans, no good.
You know nothing about football. A period of silence from you on this matter would be welcome.
LOL. Nah. Why are you so keen to defend the sport? Are you saying that it has no issues; that there are not deep problems within it? If so, then I'd argue you know nothing about the sport. And if you just want to silence voices pointing out those issues, then you too have issues.
You seek to slur a game enjoyed by literally millions every weekend. Before you embarrass yourself further, start with some simple mathematics. How many people watch football on an average weekend compared to rugby or cricket? Once you have done your sums come back to me.
And your point is? Does that make the problems in the sport automagically disappear?
I guess you're in the category in the last line in my previous post.
My point is that it’s a tiny proportion of people among millions who watch the game every weekend, orders of magnitude more than watch rugby or cricket, which are niche sports in comparison. As with any mass attended event, you will get some trouble occasionally. But you know this, your personal biases against football are compromising your ability to do simple mathematics.
Great question though - what sport has the most dangerous fans?
Darts, from the alcohol? Horseracing?
Definitely football. It's a minority, but not a tiny one. My daughter plays for a local U13s side. The number of people who think it's ok to abuse pre-teen girls because they are the opposition is astonishing. You wouldn't see a need for a sign like this being erected in any other sport, junior or otherwise.
Let me admit one other thing I got wrong (show you how it's done): up until about 9am yesterday I thought The March was planned *for today* to clash with the main Rememberance Sunday event, and the mass march past the cenotaph by thousands of veterans. I got that wrong and felt pretty silly about it - although I bet I wasn't the only one. Mea culpa.
Tsk. So ill-informed
Yes, but I don't see it as a weakness to admit when I get it wrong - and to do so publicly, as well.
I was out of order in how I addressed you yesterday as well. I hope you can accept my apologies.
It was unnecessary and uncalled for.
Apology accepted... I pardon you
Schindler's List?
Didn't that guy sniper shot the boy through the head anyway five minutes later?
Yeah, that scene always freaks me out, you think the boy's gonna be just fine
It's shocking as it underlines he's just a psychopath who really enjoys killing and takes pleasure from it.
“Pro Palestine protesters firing rocket fireworks up and down roads leading into Victoria. Zero police interjection. They are having fun now despite danger to public #remembranceday”
On a very basic level, if a slogan is consistently and widely misunderstood, it’s not a very good slogan, so needs changing. If you’re concerned about the misunderstanding, of course.
If a slogan is being wilfully misinterpreted by people - or if one interpretation is being attributed to people who quite obviously are not using it in that way - isn't it possible that this is because there are people who object to all interpretations of the slogan, and are trying to shut down debate? In my view, calling into question the existence of Israel - as an explicitly Jewish state in which Arab Muslims and Christians are second class citizens at best while the West Bank and Gaza are respectively occupied and encroached upon and strangled economically - is legitimate, while calling for Jews living anywhere in the world to be harmed or forced from their homes is utterly disgusting and wrong. All states are simply political creations and it can never be wrong to question whether they are an appropriate mechanism for delivering security and happiness to their citizens. Defending human rights is what matters, not defending a specific form of political organisation. Now you may take the view that I do, that calling for Israel and the occupied territories to be replaced by a single secular state in which all people are free and equal citizens is a waste of time as it simply won't happen, but I don't think that it should be viewed as an extreme or hateful position to do so. There is plenty of unambiguously hateful and antisemitic abuse for the authorities to investigate, unfortunately, without trying to criminalise the use of a phrase that means different things to different people. I hate to think of Jewish people being upset on hearing the phrase and it's not one I have ever used myself in part for that reason, but I think that banning phrases because people get upset by them is a slippery slope to go down and not one I could support.
"calling into question the existence of Israel - as an explicitly Jewish state in which Arab Muslims and Christians are second class citizens at best while the West Bank and Gaza are respectively occupied and encroached upon and strangled economically - is legitimate,"
I think that's utterly wrong. Or at least, if you call the existence of Israel into question because it is a religious state, then why not call into existence other religious states, who treat citizens of other religions far worse than Israel does, and also interfere with neighbours.
Such as Iran.
Why is Israel different?
As far as I know, Israeli Arabs and Christians have equal voting rights, and are not blocked from any major offices of state because of their religion. Yes, Israel was set up for Jewish people and the religion plays a central role in the state but it is certainly not a religious state, as is Iran - if that was the case, to take one example, you would not see such a vibrant LGBTQ+ lifestyle.
Now if the poster wants to question Israel's right to exist, that is your right but you seem fairly non-understanding / non-fussed as to the historic conditions that led to the creation of Israel.
I think what really winds me up most about the sort of post re questioning of Israel's right to exist is the double standards often showed by such posters. Questioning Jewish Israel's right to exist is all fine and easy to state but start raising questions about theocratic Muslim states such as Iran or why Hamas butchering unarmed people is just wrong with no need for a "but..." and we start to get all the equivocation, talk about "context" and that the situation is "complex" and that Islamophobia is on the rise.
On the last point, btw, does anyone know of any attacks on Mosques, Muslims etc specifically due to what is happening in the Middle East? The anti-Jewish intimidation has been well documented but I have not read anything in the regional or national press of actual incidents.
I suspect that not only is there plenty of antisemitism in this country but there's also a tolerance of those expressing antisemitic views which wouldn't be extended to those with racist or homophobic opinions.
Leon - anything incorrect or just selective reporting that you are complaining about?
Deeply selective reporting
No mention that the pro-Palestinians were shooting fireworks at the faces of the cops, by the end
No mention of the attempted stabbings, the menacing gangs, the mobbing of Gove, the cars driving around full of people shouting at Jews
That is the summary from the Live page. If we look instead at the BBC's main story, it does mention Gove (with video), the PM condemning both sides, and the police issuing three pictures of pro-Palestine marchers they want to identify. It says there have been 188 hate crime arrests, most for antisemitic offences, since 7th October. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67390514
The only real complaint I can see about the BBC Live reporting Leon complains about is that this refers to a splinter group of pro-Palestine marchers but that is not mentioned in the summary: Officers also intercepted a group of 150. Arrests were made after some of the fireworks struck officers in the face
However scrolling down finds a fuller account which is:- Arrests made after officers struck by fireworks - police Earlier we reported that officers detained a breakaway group of about 150 people from the pro-Palestinian demonstration.
The statement from the assistant commissioner says the group of 150 were "wearing face coverings and firing fireworks".
He says "arrests were made" after some officers were struck in the face with fireworks.
His statement adds that the Met will be publishing images people suspected to have committed offences, such as showing support for UK proscribed terrorist organisations, including Hamas.
And earlier than that, where it becomes clear the BBC reporters did not see this first-hand:-
We've had another update from the Metropolitan Police to say that officers have detained a breakaway group of around 150 people from the pro-Palestinian demonstration.
The group in Grosvenor Place in Belgravia were firing fireworks and many are wearing face coverings, the force says in a post on X, formerly Twitter.
Officers are detaining and searching those involved under Section 60 and 60AA powers, the Met adds.
The Met is using the word detained in its statement, but this may not be the same as being arrested. BBC News is asking the Met for more information.
Channel 4 news partiality, or lack of it, is certainly not a surprise. It’s becoming a bit of a left of centre GB News.
There was a group of casuals detained by the police yesterday to prevent a breach of the peace.
People who call all casuals neo nazi or far right are wrong. Some will be.
Most just turn up for,a ruck and a pissup. They were even brawling among themselves. Their politics goes across the whole spectrum. They just like a tear up.
I'm amused by the way Linekar and others are complaining about them being called "Football Hooligans". Their clubs might not have been playing, but they are organised through the diseased sport he earns millions from us to speak cr@p about.
My son and his U15 team play every week, they train twice a week. Every weekend hundreds of thousands of mostly young people give their all, getting fresh air and exercise and learning about teamwork and dedication. Millions watch games, enjoying the excitement and spectacle of a beautiful game that enjoys global appeal. A few frustrated, angry, violent men who attach themselves to the game for the purpose of violence do not represent it. Diseased sport my arse.
Josias has an irrational hatred of our national game, and knows sod all about it. He is best ignored on this topic.
It's really not irrational. And whilst some may see it as "our national game", that does not mean that it has to define our nation. Especially as most of the nation don't follow it, perhaps aside from 'special' games.
Football has massive issues, both nationally and internationally. Ignoring those issues, or turning a blind eye to them, does the sport, and its fans, no good.
You know nothing about football. A period of silence from you on this matter would be welcome.
LOL. Nah. Why are you so keen to defend the sport? Are you saying that it has no issues; that there are not deep problems within it? If so, then I'd argue you know nothing about the sport. And if you just want to silence voices pointing out those issues, then you too have issues.
You seek to slur a game enjoyed by literally millions every weekend. Before you embarrass yourself further, start with some simple mathematics. How many people watch football on an average weekend compared to rugby or cricket? Once you have done your sums come back to me.
And your point is? Does that make the problems in the sport automagically disappear?
I guess you're in the category in the last line in my previous post.
My point is that it’s a tiny proportion of people among millions who watch the game every weekend, orders of magnitude more than watch rugby or cricket, which are niche sports in comparison. As with any mass attended event, you will get some trouble occasionally. But you know this, your personal biases against football are compromising your ability to do simple mathematics.
Great question though - what sport has the most dangerous fans?
Darts, from the alcohol? Horseracing?
Definitely football. It's a minority, but not a tiny one. My daughter plays for a local U13s side. The number of people who think it's ok to abuse pre-teen girls because they are the opposition is astonishing. You wouldn't see a need for a sign like this being erected in any other sport, junior or otherwise.
It’s rather sad that signs like that need to be written. For a kids’ game as well. AIUI the problem has been getting worse over time, and the same parents can have a totally different attitude when the same kids play rugby or cricket.
I see this morning that the police put the group letting off fireworks yesterday at 150. So much for @Leon's tens of thousands. And @Casino_Royale thinks @Leon's hysterical reporting was reliable.
So higher than the number of hooligans arrested yet?
@Leon was right. It reflects badly on too many posters on here that they don't have the humility or integrity to admit it.
??? Tens of thousands compared to 150 makes @leon right? Honestly some people will defend any old nonsense.
Given the majority of the casuals went for a ruck (many of whom would be happy to have a go at plod) but the majority of the pro Hamas/pro gaza/pro ceasefire/anti Israel marchers/supporters didn’t then it is no surprise that the numbers are proportionally different. Leon’s point on the reporting was not unreasonable.
@leon claimed there were tens of thousands letting off fireworks. How is that reasonable and not hysterical?
He didn't say that.
Let me admit one other thing I got wrong (show you how it's done): up until about 9am yesterday I thought The March was planned *for today* to clash with the main Rememberance Sunday event, and the mass march past the cenotaph by thousands of veterans. I got that wrong and felt pretty silly about it - although I bet I wasn't the only one. Mea culpa.
You?
Lots of people thought that so don't worry about it. Completely reasonable.
Leon did say ten to fifteen thousand people. Love to admit I was wrong, but I'm not. He said it. He did.
You are being added to my idiots list.
Well done.
What you mean because I quoted @leon accurately and you cocked up. I mean not difficult to check. His post is there from yesterday. You seriously want me to say I got something wrong which clearly I didn't.
You are completely barking mad.
You’re very confident of my quote. Can you cut and paste it on here?
LOL
"The fireworks came from all over: I have the photos. The idea this was just "150" is comforting garbage
By the end it WAS down to a hardcore - of several thousand, maybe 10-15,000"
Do I say every single one of those 10-15,000 had fireworks? No, of course not. It would be physically impossible
I’m saying that the march reduced to about 10-15,000 who looked like they wanted trouble. And they found it in multiple places
“Pro Palestine protesters firing rocket fireworks up and down roads leading into Victoria. Zero police interjection. They are having fun now despite danger to public #remembranceday”
Given Remembrance Day is today that would be difficult ! And exactly what was disrupted yesterday in terms of the actual Cenotaph re the pro Palestinian march ?
The only disruption there was by hooligans and the EDL .
And I saw the EDL and they were pathetic racist thugs and i said so on here. Also quite fat
But there was 238 of them, not 30,000 or 300,000 - that’s the point
@leon hmmm…as a (relatively) neutral observer munching popcorn the morning after, you’ve been a bit skewered by @kjh here. Your ‘just 150’ followed by the next paragraph has a very clear implication.
Excellent barney, though, I’m thoroughly enjoying the repercussions, especially CR as the Robin to your Batman. Chapeau.
Er, no. He's proved everyone wrong yesterday who was doubting and dismissing his on the spot reports but they're not man enough to admit it, so are spraying shit around and inventing squirrels to point at instead.
I mean, it's fine - not many people like to admit they got it wrong - but it's not particularly edifying either, or a way of winning respect.
Anyway - good turn out and a moving service for Rememberance Day in my little town today. Quite impressive a town of this size can rustle up so many veterans, along with a brass band, male voice choir and assorted cadets, brownies, guides, cubs and scouts.
Churches are impressive buildings but spiritually leave me cold (aside from the bells, of course). Religion somehow much more convincing outdoors in the November drizzle.
Attacking during mud season, then, is a terrible idea.
The Russian army, reinforcing the impression of incompetence it has given ever since the invasion, is of course mounting a huge attack in the Avdiivka area right now.
Reportedly a third assault wave of 40,000 men is about to be thrown in. Ten days of rain are forecast, with temperatures remaining well above freezing. British military intelligence has already suggested that Russian losses in Avdiivka will be the worst in any operation this year, and that’s saying something.
“Pro Palestine protesters firing rocket fireworks up and down roads leading into Victoria. Zero police interjection. They are having fun now despite danger to public #remembranceday”
I see this morning that the police put the group letting off fireworks yesterday at 150. So much for @Leon's tens of thousands. And @Casino_Royale thinks @Leon's hysterical reporting was reliable.
So higher than the number of hooligans arrested yet?
@Leon was right. It reflects badly on too many posters on here that they don't have the humility or integrity to admit it.
??? Tens of thousands compared to 150 makes @leon right? Honestly some people will defend any old nonsense.
Given the majority of the casuals went for a ruck (many of whom would be happy to have a go at plod) but the majority of the pro Hamas/pro gaza/pro ceasefire/anti Israel marchers/supporters didn’t then it is no surprise that the numbers are proportionally different. Leon’s point on the reporting was not unreasonable.
@leon claimed there were tens of thousands letting off fireworks. How is that reasonable and not hysterical?
He didn't say that.
Let me admit one other thing I got wrong (show you how it's done): up until about 9am yesterday I thought The March was planned *for today* to clash with the main Rememberance Sunday event, and the mass march past the cenotaph by thousands of veterans. I got that wrong and felt pretty silly about it - although I bet I wasn't the only one. Mea culpa.
You?
Lots of people thought that so don't worry about it. Completely reasonable.
Leon did say ten to fifteen thousand people. Love to admit I was wrong, but I'm not. He said it. He did.
You are being added to my idiots list.
Well done.
What you mean because I quoted @leon accurately and you cocked up. I mean not difficult to check. His post is there from yesterday. You seriously want me to say I got something wrong which clearly I didn't.
You are completely barking mad.
You’re very confident of my quote. Can you cut and paste it on here?
LOL
"The fireworks came from all over: I have the photos. The idea this was just "150" is comforting garbage
By the end it WAS down to a hardcore - of several thousand, maybe 10-15,000"
Do I say every single one of those 10-15,000 had fireworks? No, of course not. It would be physically impossible
I’m saying that the march reduced to about 10-15,000 who looked like they wanted trouble. And they found it in multiple places
“Pro Palestine protesters firing rocket fireworks up and down roads leading into Victoria. Zero police interjection. They are having fun now despite danger to public #remembranceday”
Given Remembrance Day is today that would be difficult ! And exactly what was disrupted yesterday in terms of the actual Cenotaph re the pro Palestinian march ?
The only disruption there was by hooligans and the EDL .
And I saw the EDL and they were pathetic racist thugs and i said so on here. Also quite fat
But there was 238 of them, not 30,000 or 300,000 - that’s the point
@leon hmmm…as a (relatively) neutral observer munching popcorn the morning after, you’ve been a bit skewered by @kjh here. Your ‘just 150’ followed by the next paragraph has a very clear implication.
Excellent barney, though, I’m thoroughly enjoying the repercussions, especially CR as the Robin to your Batman. Chapeau.
Er, no. He's proved everyone wrong yesterday who was doubting and dismissing his on the spot reports but they're not man enough to admit it, so are spraying shit around and inventing squirrels to point at instead.
I mean, it's fine - not many people like to admit they got it wrong - but it's not particularly edifying either, or a way of winning respect.
Shame.
I note that the “most read” article in the Spectator right now is by a journo who had similar experiences to mine. So I wasn’t alone
Leon - anything incorrect or just selective reporting that you are complaining about?
Deeply selective reporting
No mention that the pro-Palestinians were shooting fireworks at the faces of the cops, by the end
No mention of the attempted stabbings, the menacing gangs, the mobbing of Gove, the cars driving around full of people shouting at Jews
That is the summary from the Live page. If we look instead at the BBC's main story, it does mention Gove (with video), the PM condemning both sides, and the police issuing three pictures of pro-Palestine marchers they want to identify. It says there have been 188 hate crime arrests, most for antisemitic offences, since 7th October. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67390514
The only real complaint I can see about the BBC Live reporting Leon complains about is that this refers to a splinter group of pro-Palestine marchers but that is not mentioned in the summary: Officers also intercepted a group of 150. Arrests were made after some of the fireworks struck officers in the face
However scrolling down finds a fuller account which is:- Arrests made after officers struck by fireworks - police Earlier we reported that officers detained a breakaway group of about 150 people from the pro-Palestinian demonstration.
The statement from the assistant commissioner says the group of 150 were "wearing face coverings and firing fireworks".
He says "arrests were made" after some officers were struck in the face with fireworks.
His statement adds that the Met will be publishing images people suspected to have committed offences, such as showing support for UK proscribed terrorist organisations, including Hamas.
And earlier than that, where it becomes clear the BBC reporters did not see this first-hand:-
We've had another update from the Metropolitan Police to say that officers have detained a breakaway group of around 150 people from the pro-Palestinian demonstration.
The group in Grosvenor Place in Belgravia were firing fireworks and many are wearing face coverings, the force says in a post on X, formerly Twitter.
Officers are detaining and searching those involved under Section 60 and 60AA powers, the Met adds.
The Met is using the word detained in its statement, but this may not be the same as being arrested. BBC News is asking the Met for more information.
Channel 4 news partiality, or lack of it, is certainly not a surprise. It’s becoming a bit of a left of centre GB News.
There was a group of casuals detained by the police yesterday to prevent a breach of the peace.
People who call all casuals neo nazi or far right are wrong. Some will be.
Most just turn up for,a ruck and a pissup. They were even brawling among themselves. Their politics goes across the whole spectrum. They just like a tear up.
I'm amused by the way Linekar and others are complaining about them being called "Football Hooligans". Their clubs might not have been playing, but they are organised through the diseased sport he earns millions from us to speak cr@p about.
My son and his U15 team play every week, they train twice a week. Every weekend hundreds of thousands of mostly young people give their all, getting fresh air and exercise and learning about teamwork and dedication. Millions watch games, enjoying the excitement and spectacle of a beautiful game that enjoys global appeal. A few frustrated, angry, violent men who attach themselves to the game for the purpose of violence do not represent it. Diseased sport my arse.
Josias has an irrational hatred of our national game, and knows sod all about it. He is best ignored on this topic.
Yes, there's an areshole element in every population, so no surprise they occur amongst footballers and fans.
This site has some weird tics and biases and the prevelance of anti-football attitudes is one of them. I suppose it is indicative of its skew towards the better off and the privately educated.
The “weird bias” is to despise the corruption and violence which seems endemic in high end professional football.
The rest of the sporting world doesn’t seem to need to segregate supporters. Or require an army of police to prevent a riot.
Leon - anything incorrect or just selective reporting that you are complaining about?
Deeply selective reporting
No mention that the pro-Palestinians were shooting fireworks at the faces of the cops, by the end
No mention of the attempted stabbings, the menacing gangs, the mobbing of Gove, the cars driving around full of people shouting at Jews
That is the summary from the Live page. If we look instead at the BBC's main story, it does mention Gove (with video), the PM condemning both sides, and the police issuing three pictures of pro-Palestine marchers they want to identify. It says there have been 188 hate crime arrests, most for antisemitic offences, since 7th October. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67390514
The only real complaint I can see about the BBC Live reporting Leon complains about is that this refers to a splinter group of pro-Palestine marchers but that is not mentioned in the summary: Officers also intercepted a group of 150. Arrests were made after some of the fireworks struck officers in the face
However scrolling down finds a fuller account which is:- Arrests made after officers struck by fireworks - police Earlier we reported that officers detained a breakaway group of about 150 people from the pro-Palestinian demonstration.
The statement from the assistant commissioner says the group of 150 were "wearing face coverings and firing fireworks".
He says "arrests were made" after some officers were struck in the face with fireworks.
His statement adds that the Met will be publishing images people suspected to have committed offences, such as showing support for UK proscribed terrorist organisations, including Hamas.
And earlier than that, where it becomes clear the BBC reporters did not see this first-hand:-
We've had another update from the Metropolitan Police to say that officers have detained a breakaway group of around 150 people from the pro-Palestinian demonstration.
The group in Grosvenor Place in Belgravia were firing fireworks and many are wearing face coverings, the force says in a post on X, formerly Twitter.
Officers are detaining and searching those involved under Section 60 and 60AA powers, the Met adds.
The Met is using the word detained in its statement, but this may not be the same as being arrested. BBC News is asking the Met for more information.
Channel 4 news partiality, or lack of it, is certainly not a surprise. It’s becoming a bit of a left of centre GB News.
There was a group of casuals detained by the police yesterday to prevent a breach of the peace.
People who call all casuals neo nazi or far right are wrong. Some will be.
Most just turn up for,a ruck and a pissup. They were even brawling among themselves. Their politics goes across the whole spectrum. They just like a tear up.
I'm amused by the way Linekar and others are complaining about them being called "Football Hooligans". Their clubs might not have been playing, but they are organised through the diseased sport he earns millions from us to speak cr@p about.
My son and his U15 team play every week, they train twice a week. Every weekend hundreds of thousands of mostly young people give their all, getting fresh air and exercise and learning about teamwork and dedication. Millions watch games, enjoying the excitement and spectacle of a beautiful game that enjoys global appeal. A few frustrated, angry, violent men who attach themselves to the game for the purpose of violence do not represent it. Diseased sport my arse.
Josias has an irrational hatred of our national game, and knows sod all about it. He is best ignored on this topic.
It's really not irrational. And whilst some may see it as "our national game", that does not mean that it has to define our nation. Especially as most of the nation don't follow it, perhaps aside from 'special' games.
Football has massive issues, both nationally and internationally. Ignoring those issues, or turning a blind eye to them, does the sport, and its fans, no good.
You know nothing about football. A period of silence from you on this matter would be welcome.
LOL. Nah. Why are you so keen to defend the sport? Are you saying that it has no issues; that there are not deep problems within it? If so, then I'd argue you know nothing about the sport. And if you just want to silence voices pointing out those issues, then you too have issues.
You seek to slur a game enjoyed by literally millions every weekend. Before you embarrass yourself further, start with some simple mathematics. How many people watch football on an average weekend compared to rugby or cricket? Once you have done your sums come back to me.
And your point is? Does that make the problems in the sport automagically disappear?
I guess you're in the category in the last line in my previous post.
My point is that it’s a tiny proportion of people among millions who watch the game every weekend, orders of magnitude more than watch rugby or cricket, which are niche sports in comparison. As with any mass attended event, you will get some trouble occasionally. But you know this, your personal biases against football are compromising your ability to do simple mathematics.
Great question though - what sport has the most dangerous fans?
Darts, from the alcohol? Horseracing?
Definitely football. It's a minority, but not a tiny one. My daughter plays for a local U13s side. The number of people who think it's ok to abuse pre-teen girls because they are the opposition is astonishing. You wouldn't see a need for a sign like this being erected in any other sport, junior or otherwise.
It’s rather sad that signs like that need to be written. For a kids’ game as well. AIUI the problem has been getting worse over time, and the same parents can have a totally different attitude when the same kids play rugby or cricket.
From the top football is built on a foundation of cheating, money, bad sportsmanship, narcissism, dishonesty, false perception, fake loyalty and manipulation.
Why should we expect the dimmer aspects of its lower levels not to learn its morality from the top?
On a very basic level, if a slogan is consistently and widely misunderstood, it’s not a very good slogan, so needs changing. If you’re concerned about the misunderstanding, of course.
If a slogan is being wilfully misinterpreted by people - or if one interpretation is being attributed to people who quite obviously are not using it in that way - isn't it possible that this is because there are people who object to all interpretations of the slogan, and are trying to shut down debate? In my view, calling into question the existence of Israel - as an explicitly Jewish state in which Arab Muslims and Christians are second class citizens at best while the West Bank and Gaza are respectively occupied and encroached upon and strangled economically - is legitimate, while calling for Jews living anywhere in the world to be harmed or forced from their homes is utterly disgusting and wrong. All states are simply political creations and it can never be wrong to question whether they are an appropriate mechanism for delivering security and happiness to their citizens. Defending human rights is what matters, not defending a specific form of political organisation. Now you may take the view that I do, that calling for Israel and the occupied territories to be replaced by a single secular state in which all people are free and equal citizens is a waste of time as it simply won't happen, but I don't think that it should be viewed as an extreme or hateful position to do so. There is plenty of unambiguously hateful and antisemitic abuse for the authorities to investigate, unfortunately, without trying to criminalise the use of a phrase that means different things to different people. I hate to think of Jewish people being upset on hearing the phrase and it's not one I have ever used myself in part for that reason, but I think that banning phrases because people get upset by them is a slippery slope to go down and not one I could support.
"calling into question the existence of Israel - as an explicitly Jewish state in which Arab Muslims and Christians are second class citizens at best while the West Bank and Gaza are respectively occupied and encroached upon and strangled economically - is legitimate,"
I think that's utterly wrong. Or at least, if you call the existence of Israel into question because it is a religious state, then why not call into existence other religious states, who treat citizens of other religions far worse than Israel does, and also interfere with neighbours.
Such as Iran.
Why is Israel different?
I think it's OK to question the existence of any state, especially one that treats minorities badly, like Iran, or Turkey or China for that matter.
There's a world of difference between pointing out that a state might treat minorities badly, and saying that questions their right to exist. IMO it's a stupid argument, and one that will not stop those states from treating their minorities poorly.
And again, why does Israel get the opprobrium, when other countries are worse; sometimes far worse?
One could equally ask why so many people excuse the actions of Israel while, rightly, condemning the actions of countries like China and Turkey.
“Pro Palestine protesters firing rocket fireworks up and down roads leading into Victoria. Zero police interjection. They are having fun now despite danger to public #remembranceday”
Yes, but the fact you can point to worse behaviour doesn't make the behaviour of some marchers yesterday any less disturbing.
Quite, the behaviour of the far-right was a disgrace. Trying to disrupt a service at the Cenotaph in a pathetic act of one-upmanship on the far-left.
Together, extremists on both sides have managed to make the Met look good, ffs.
They weren’t trying to disrupt the service at the Cenotaph, FWIW
They were angry at being excluded from Whitehall for the 2 minutes’ silence. Once they shoved there way in, they were entirely respectful
They then went on to have ugly scuffles tinged with racism, so they certainly weren’t nice people. But they didn’t actually disrupt the service, if we are going to be strictly accurate
I see this morning that the police put the group letting off fireworks yesterday at 150. So much for @Leon's tens of thousands. And @Casino_Royale thinks @Leon's hysterical reporting was reliable.
So higher than the number of hooligans arrested yet?
@Leon was right. It reflects badly on too many posters on here that they don't have the humility or integrity to admit it.
??? Tens of thousands compared to 150 makes @leon right? Honestly some people will defend any old nonsense.
Given the majority of the casuals went for a ruck (many of whom would be happy to have a go at plod) but the majority of the pro Hamas/pro gaza/pro ceasefire/anti Israel marchers/supporters didn’t then it is no surprise that the numbers are proportionally different. Leon’s point on the reporting was not unreasonable.
@leon claimed there were tens of thousands letting off fireworks. How is that reasonable and not hysterical?
He didn't say that.
Let me admit one other thing I got wrong (show you how it's done): up until about 9am yesterday I thought The March was planned *for today* to clash with the main Rememberance Sunday event, and the mass march past the cenotaph by thousands of veterans. I got that wrong and felt pretty silly about it - although I bet I wasn't the only one. Mea culpa.
You?
Lots of people thought that so don't worry about it. Completely reasonable.
Leon did say ten to fifteen thousand people. Love to admit I was wrong, but I'm not. He said it. He did.
You are being added to my idiots list.
Well done.
What you mean because I quoted @leon accurately and you cocked up. I mean not difficult to check. His post is there from yesterday. You seriously want me to say I got something wrong which clearly I didn't.
You are completely barking mad.
You’re very confident of my quote. Can you cut and paste it on here?
LOL
"The fireworks came from all over: I have the photos. The idea this was just "150" is comforting garbage
By the end it WAS down to a hardcore - of several thousand, maybe 10-15,000"
Do I say every single one of those 10-15,000 had fireworks? No, of course not. It would be physically impossible
I’m saying that the march reduced to about 10-15,000 who looked like they wanted trouble. And they found it in multiple places
“Pro Palestine protesters firing rocket fireworks up and down roads leading into Victoria. Zero police interjection. They are having fun now despite danger to public #remembranceday”
Given Remembrance Day is today that would be difficult ! And exactly what was disrupted yesterday in terms of the actual Cenotaph re the pro Palestinian march ?
The only disruption there was by hooligans and the EDL .
And I saw the EDL and they were pathetic racist thugs and i said so on here. Also quite fat
But there was 238 of them, not 30,000 or 300,000 - that’s the point
@leon hmmm…as a (relatively) neutral observer munching popcorn the morning after, you’ve been a bit skewres by @kjh here. Your ‘just 150’ followed by the next paragraph has a very clear implication.
Excellent barney, though, I’m thoroughly enjoying the repercussions, especially CR as the Robin to your Batman. Chapeau.
I mean, I really haven’t. But I’m beyond caring now. More interestingly, I’ve just discovered on TwiX why PB is the way it is, and sometimes SO annoying - for me at least
“Something happens with highly intelligent people (140IQ+) which is interesting. People within the range of average to above average (100IQ-125IQ) struggle to recognize them, but people who are average to slightly below average (85IQ-99IQ) recognize them almost instantly.”
Most of PB is 100-125 IQ. You therefore struggle to understand me; meantime I get frustrated because I presume you can swiftly infer things the way I can. But you can’t, you can’t make the obvious logical leaps, you need to be talked through it and have it explained (tediously, for me)
Hence we get these dialogues of the deaf. This weekend is an example
That IS more interesting.
But given that Muskian Twixter is almost all nonsense, I’ll take it under advisement.
PS were I not one of the posters that fits into your third category I would have replied with the much wittier: ‘It’s not how big it is but what you do with it that counts’.
Shame. At least I recognise your shining brilliance, though.
I see the BBC are posting photos emotive images sent from inside a hospital in Gaza in a totally uncritical manner...the same hospital that the IDF released audio of the hospital management organising with Hamas on how to organise their people about in the facility.
Attacking during mud season, then, is a terrible idea.
The Russian army, reinforcing the impression of incompetence it has given ever since the invasion, is of course mounting a huge attack in the Avdiivka area right now.
Reportedly a third assault wave of 40,000 men is about to be thrown in. Ten days of rain are forecast, with temperatures remaining well above freezing. British military intelligence has already suggested that Russian losses in Avdiivka will be the worst in any operation this year, and that’s saying something.
One worry is how many of the men Russia is throwing at Avdiivka are actually Russian. We know Russia is forcing Ukrainian PoW to fight for them, and conscripting Ukrainians in the territory it occupies. It's absolutely barbaric.
Looks in. Very grumpy. Decides to go off and read an interesting new book on spigot mortars.
Oooh, which book is that? I've been fascinated by them since my old flat south of Cambridge had the base of one outside it, the stainless steel pin still immaculate. I occasionally find bases on walks or runs, including one by the river in Ely.
Looks back in after finishing an email, goes off again ... ah!
Chrome or stainless or anyway shiny pin on a round concrete block? ISTR seeing them on the defence line along the Kennet and Avon Canal once. That must be the Blacker Bombard IIRC which indeed is covered. I haven't got that far (or indeed very far, so IANAE on the book, but it seems to be based on primary documents. Might be up @Malmesbury 's street too so I'll add him in.
Above the roof of the car, to the right of the hedge. I assume the buildings around it are more modern, as there's little point in having it there now. I also assume it was to defend the area around the rail bridge and the two railway lines.
That's a very nice spot - not at all obvious.
Maybe part of the GHQ line, ie. of a larger linear barrier, rather than defence of local assets? Some poking around suggests that this might be so.
Looks in. Very grumpy. Decides to go off and read an interesting new book on spigot mortars.
Oooh, which book is that? I've been fascinated by them since my old flat south of Cambridge had the base of one outside it, the stainless steel pin still immaculate. I occasionally find bases on walks or runs, including one by the river in Ely.
Looks back in after finishing an email, goes off again ... ah!
Chrome or stainless or anyway shiny pin on a round concrete block? ISTR seeing them on the defence line along the Kennet and Avon Canal once. That must be the Blacker Bombard IIRC which indeed is covered. I haven't got that far (or indeed very far, so IANAE on the book, but it seems to be based on primary documents. Might be up @Malmesbury 's street too so I'll add him in.
Above the roof of the car, to the right of the hedge. I assume the buildings around it are more modern, as there's little point in having it there now. I also assume it was to defend the area around the rail bridge and the two railway lines.
That's a very nice spot - not at all obvious.
Maybe part of the GHQ line, ie. of a larger linear barrier, rather than defence of local assets? Some poking around suggests that this might be so.
Not really a hard spot, as the path from my old flat into the village went right past it. I saw it for a year or so and had no idea what it was, then asked a local in a pub, who told me it was part of a gun. From there it was easy to research.
Before then, I'd assumed it was some sort of very strong survey point, like an OS benchmark pin.
Leon - anything incorrect or just selective reporting that you are complaining about?
Deeply selective reporting
No mention that the pro-Palestinians were shooting fireworks at the faces of the cops, by the end
No mention of the attempted stabbings, the menacing gangs, the mobbing of Gove, the cars driving around full of people shouting at Jews
That is the summary from the Live page. If we look instead at the BBC's main story, it does mention Gove (with video), the PM condemning both sides, and the police issuing three pictures of pro-Palestine marchers they want to identify. It says there have been 188 hate crime arrests, most for antisemitic offences, since 7th October. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67390514
The only real complaint I can see about the BBC Live reporting Leon complains about is that this refers to a splinter group of pro-Palestine marchers but that is not mentioned in the summary: Officers also intercepted a group of 150. Arrests were made after some of the fireworks struck officers in the face
However scrolling down finds a fuller account which is:- Arrests made after officers struck by fireworks - police Earlier we reported that officers detained a breakaway group of about 150 people from the pro-Palestinian demonstration.
The statement from the assistant commissioner says the group of 150 were "wearing face coverings and firing fireworks".
He says "arrests were made" after some officers were struck in the face with fireworks.
His statement adds that the Met will be publishing images people suspected to have committed offences, such as showing support for UK proscribed terrorist organisations, including Hamas.
And earlier than that, where it becomes clear the BBC reporters did not see this first-hand:-
We've had another update from the Metropolitan Police to say that officers have detained a breakaway group of around 150 people from the pro-Palestinian demonstration.
The group in Grosvenor Place in Belgravia were firing fireworks and many are wearing face coverings, the force says in a post on X, formerly Twitter.
Officers are detaining and searching those involved under Section 60 and 60AA powers, the Met adds.
The Met is using the word detained in its statement, but this may not be the same as being arrested. BBC News is asking the Met for more information.
Channel 4 news partiality, or lack of it, is certainly not a surprise. It’s becoming a bit of a left of centre GB News.
There was a group of casuals detained by the police yesterday to prevent a breach of the peace.
People who call all casuals neo nazi or far right are wrong. Some will be.
Most just turn up for,a ruck and a pissup. They were even brawling among themselves. Their politics goes across the whole spectrum. They just like a tear up.
I'm amused by the way Linekar and others are complaining about them being called "Football Hooligans". Their clubs might not have been playing, but they are organised through the diseased sport he earns millions from us to speak cr@p about.
My son and his U15 team play every week, they train twice a week. Every weekend hundreds of thousands of mostly young people give their all, getting fresh air and exercise and learning about teamwork and dedication. Millions watch games, enjoying the excitement and spectacle of a beautiful game that enjoys global appeal. A few frustrated, angry, violent men who attach themselves to the game for the purpose of violence do not represent it. Diseased sport my arse.
Josias has an irrational hatred of our national game, and knows sod all about it. He is best ignored on this topic.
It's really not irrational. And whilst some may see it as "our national game", that does not mean that it has to define our nation. Especially as most of the nation don't follow it, perhaps aside from 'special' games.
Football has massive issues, both nationally and internationally. Ignoring those issues, or turning a blind eye to them, does the sport, and its fans, no good.
You know nothing about football. A period of silence from you on this matter would be welcome.
LOL. Nah. Why are you so keen to defend the sport? Are you saying that it has no issues; that there are not deep problems within it? If so, then I'd argue you know nothing about the sport. And if you just want to silence voices pointing out those issues, then you too have issues.
You seek to slur a game enjoyed by literally millions every weekend. Before you embarrass yourself further, start with some simple mathematics. How many people watch football on an average weekend compared to rugby or cricket? Once you have done your sums come back to me.
And your point is? Does that make the problems in the sport automagically disappear?
I guess you're in the category in the last line in my previous post.
My point is that it’s a tiny proportion of people among millions who watch the game every weekend, orders of magnitude more than watch rugby or cricket, which are niche sports in comparison. As with any mass attended event, you will get some trouble occasionally. But you know this, your personal biases against football are compromising your ability to do simple mathematics.
Great question though - what sport has the most dangerous fans?
Darts, from the alcohol? Horseracing?
Road bowling fans put themselves in the greatest danger, of financial ruin as well as death from tourist traffic.
Looks like the Spectator columnist sat in the pub all day scrolling pb and Twitter.
An image emerges of Seany after his gruelling day.
I see they used one of his images for his article. He must be pleased
More importantly, I think the government now has to do something about these marches. Can they really be allowed to continue, weekend after weekend? They will only get uglier and more intimidating for Jews
No Prince Harry or Andrew this year. Have they missed previous ones ?
Ironic being royals who actually engaged in conflict.
With all those 'medals' they should guard their own palaces. In America they call this stolen valour.
Chaz has the same size rack as Mick "Bullet Magnet" Flynn. LOL
Princess Royal notably sans metalwork. Reinforces her image as the (relatively) sensible one with a notion of pr.
She was sporting a shiny new RN Good Conduct Medal (aka the Not Getting Caught Medal) which normally takes 15 years of active duty to get at the funeral or coronation. I forget exactly which "Arseholes' Halloween Party" ( (c) Malc ) it was.
I see the BBC are posting photos emotive images sent from inside a hospital in Gaza in a totally uncritical manner...the same hospital that the IDF released audio of the hospital management organising with Hamas on how to organise their people about in the facility.
Hospitals are sacred places. Well since it's controlled by Hamas I suppose it is in a way.
On a very basic level, if a slogan is consistently and widely misunderstood, it’s not a very good slogan, so needs changing. If you’re concerned about the misunderstanding, of course.
If a slogan is being wilfully misinterpreted by people - or if one interpretation is being attributed to people who quite obviously are not using it in that way - isn't it possible that this is because there are people who object to all interpretations of the slogan, and are trying to shut down debate? In my view, calling into question the existence of Israel - as an explicitly Jewish state in which Arab Muslims and Christians are second class citizens at best while the West Bank and Gaza are respectively occupied and encroached upon and strangled economically - is legitimate, while calling for Jews living anywhere in the world to be harmed or forced from their homes is utterly disgusting and wrong. All states are simply political creations and it can never be wrong to question whether they are an appropriate mechanism for delivering security and happiness to their citizens. Defending human rights is what matters, not defending a specific form of political organisation. Now you may take the view that I do, that calling for Israel and the occupied territories to be replaced by a single secular state in which all people are free and equal citizens is a waste of time as it simply won't happen, but I don't think that it should be viewed as an extreme or hateful position to do so. There is plenty of unambiguously hateful and antisemitic abuse for the authorities to investigate, unfortunately, without trying to criminalise the use of a phrase that means different things to different people. I hate to think of Jewish people being upset on hearing the phrase and it's not one I have ever used myself in part for that reason, but I think that banning phrases because people get upset by them is a slippery slope to go down and not one I could support.
"calling into question the existence of Israel - as an explicitly Jewish state in which Arab Muslims and Christians are second class citizens at best while the West Bank and Gaza are respectively occupied and encroached upon and strangled economically - is legitimate,"
I think that's utterly wrong. Or at least, if you call the existence of Israel into question because it is a religious state, then why not call into existence other religious states, who treat citizens of other religions far worse than Israel does, and also interfere with neighbours.
Such as Iran.
Why is Israel different?
I think it's OK to question the existence of any state, especially one that treats minorities badly, like Iran, or Turkey or China for that matter.
There's a world of difference between pointing out that a state might treat minorities badly, and saying that questions their right to exist. IMO it's a stupid argument, and one that will not stop those states from treating their minorities poorly.
And again, why does Israel get the opprobrium, when other countries are worse; sometimes far worse?
One could equally ask why so many people excuse the actions of Israel while, rightly, condemning the actions of countries like China and Turkey.
Has Israel been throwing its minorities into concentration camps and enforcing steerilisation on its minority populations? Must have missed that one
On a very basic level, if a slogan is consistently and widely misunderstood, it’s not a very good slogan, so needs changing. If you’re concerned about the misunderstanding, of course.
If a slogan is being wilfully misinterpreted by people - or if one interpretation is being attributed to people who quite obviously are not using it in that way - isn't it possible that this is because there are people who object to all interpretations of the slogan, and are trying to shut down debate? In my view, calling into question the existence of Israel - as an explicitly Jewish state in which Arab Muslims and Christians are second class citizens at best while the West Bank and Gaza are respectively occupied and encroached upon and strangled economically - is legitimate, while calling for Jews living anywhere in the world to be harmed or forced from their homes is utterly disgusting and wrong. All states are simply political creations and it can never be wrong to question whether they are an appropriate mechanism for delivering security and happiness to their citizens. Defending human rights is what matters, not defending a specific form of political organisation. Now you may take the view that I do, that calling for Israel and the occupied territories to be replaced by a single secular state in which all people are free and equal citizens is a waste of time as it simply won't happen, but I don't think that it should be viewed as an extreme or hateful position to do so. There is plenty of unambiguously hateful and antisemitic abuse for the authorities to investigate, unfortunately, without trying to criminalise the use of a phrase that means different things to different people. I hate to think of Jewish people being upset on hearing the phrase and it's not one I have ever used myself in part for that reason, but I think that banning phrases because people get upset by them is a slippery slope to go down and not one I could support.
"calling into question the existence of Israel - as an explicitly Jewish state in which Arab Muslims and Christians are second class citizens at best while the West Bank and Gaza are respectively occupied and encroached upon and strangled economically - is legitimate,"
I think that's utterly wrong. Or at least, if you call the existence of Israel into question because it is a religious state, then why not call into existence other religious states, who treat citizens of other religions far worse than Israel does, and also interfere with neighbours.
Such as Iran.
Why is Israel different?
I think it's OK to question the existence of any state, especially one that treats minorities badly, like Iran, or Turkey or China for that matter.
There's a world of difference between pointing out that a state might treat minorities badly, and saying that questions their right to exist. IMO it's a stupid argument, and one that will not stop those states from treating their minorities poorly.
And again, why does Israel get the opprobrium, when other countries are worse; sometimes far worse?
One could equally ask why so many people excuse the actions of Israel while, rightly, condemning the actions of countries like China and Turkey.
Well, there's a rather mahoosive difference there, isn't there? One that for all your righteous anti-Israel anger, you've forgotten. Or chosen to ignore for whatever reason.
Armenia has not attacked Turkey. The Chinese Uyghurs have not attacked China. Those groups do not want to destroy those countries.
Whereas Hamas have attacked Israel in a massive manner, and want - to their core - to destroy Israel.
I mean, that might be an irrelevance to you, but not to Israrelis. Or anyone who actually cares for people.
No Prince Harry or Andrew this year. Have they missed previous ones ?
Ironic being royals who actually engaged in conflict.
With all those 'medals' they should guard their own palaces. In America they call this stolen valour.
Chaz has the same size rack as Mick "Bullet Magnet" Flynn. LOL
Prince Edward is my favourite, his four months in the Royal Marines was the most dangerous in the history of the Marines.
Edward gave my daughter her degree. I can't remember what it was she said he said to her as he did so, but it put her at her ease. And he did the same for the other couple of hundred graduates at the ceremony.
He at least seems to be pretty good at the meeting complete strangers briefly part of the job.
Anyone else hate that thing where restaurants give you a menu, and allow you a good 10 minutes to consider your order and then say, "are you ready to order, Sir?", only to then say when you do make your choice: "Oh, sorry. We don't have that." ?!
The beauty contest. Predictably Truss has used it as an opportunity to display her screwed up fashion sense. That rating behind her second on right looks as if he's thinking 'I wouldn't say no'.
Anyone else hate that thing where restaurants give you a menu, and allow you a good 10 minutes to consider your order and then say, "are you ready to order, Sir?", only to then say when you do make your choice: "Oh, sorry. We don't have that." ?!
Not anywhere near as much as automatically adding the tip / service charge onto your bill......
I didn't go on the march myself but a friend of mine did and he says it went off ok. Very little trouble, esp when you consider the size of it.
PS: @Nigelb@Theuniondivvie Cheers for clearing up the confusion on PT around the post where I reference NON racist @Casino_Royale - it would have been most unfortunate (!) if that had been left with the eponymous under the diametrically wrong impression.
Comments
Bath would have been a sell out @16000
John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
·
10m
If Suella Braverman wants to be leader, she has to learn how to count
There were a lot of people like Schindler about, who got little of Schindler's prominence. And who also had none of Schindler's negatives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kendrick_(agent)
Excellent barney, though, I’m thoroughly enjoying the repercussions, especially CR as the Robin to your Batman. Chapeau.
Now you may take the view that I do, that calling for Israel and the occupied territories to be replaced by a single secular state in which all people are free and equal citizens is a waste of time as it simply won't happen, but I don't think that it should be viewed as an extreme or hateful position to do so. There is plenty of unambiguously hateful and antisemitic abuse for the authorities to investigate, unfortunately, without trying to criminalise the use of a phrase that means different things to different people. I hate to think of Jewish people being upset on hearing the phrase and it's not one I have ever used myself in part for that reason, but I think that banning phrases because people get upset by them is a slippery slope to go down and not one I could support.
Totally and utterly lost the plot.
The only way that works is if inflation rates are W-A-Y down by next October and interest rates have followed them, generating some kind of feel good factor.
Oh, and we discover enough Unobtanium to fuel the world. That might help. A bit.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1723656148790673660
In my view, don’t ban it, but also educate yourself enough not to chant it.
Of course it means different things to different people, but there is enough historical scapegoating and murdering of Jews globally that some additional self-censorship seems appropriate.
For similar reasons I’d probably not draw a caricature of Mohammed, even though I don’t want it to be illegal to do so.
“Something happens with highly intelligent people (140IQ+) which is interesting. People within the range of average to above average (100IQ-125IQ) struggle to recognize them, but people who are average to slightly below average (85IQ-99IQ) recognize them almost instantly.”
Most of PB is 100-125 IQ. You therefore struggle to understand me; meantime I get frustrated because I presume you can swiftly infer things the way I can. But you can’t, you can’t make the obvious logical leaps, you need to be talked through it and have it explained (tediously, for me)
Hence we get these dialogues of the deaf. This weekend is an example
I think that's utterly wrong. Or at least, if you call the existence of Israel into question because it is a religious state, then why not call into existence other religious states, who treat citizens of other religions far worse than Israel does, and also interfere with neighbours.
Such as Iran.
Why is Israel different?
How can it fail?
Ironic being royals who actually engaged in conflict.
But given that Muskian Twixter is almost all nonsense, I’ll take it under advisement.
@AlastairMeeks
·
1h
The timing doesn't work. To hold an election before Christmas the election would need to be called by Thursday. The decision comes out on Wednesday.
Holding an election voluntarily that spanned Christmas and New Year would be "courageous".
Also, which boundaries?
And again, why does Israel get the opprobrium, when other countries are worse; sometimes far worse?
Though the alternative is that this salon is the smartest one in town, and is one of the few places where people understand you (or your writing persona, anyway) all too well.
The Iranian state should definitely be called into question! And is being by protesters that are being brutalised.
Iran and its predecessor Persia have been a nation-state for longer than almost any, bar China, Greece and one or two others.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.1518255,0.1355315,3a,15.2y,36.92h,82.12t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sQLB3QhPEH3oA7Q4n0vZ6lA!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?panoid=QLB3QhPEH3oA7Q4n0vZ6lA&cb_client=maps_sv.tactile.gps&w=203&h=100&yaw=345.14148&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu
Above the roof of the car, to the right of the hedge. I assume the buildings around it are more modern, as there's little point in having it there now. I also assume it was to defend the area around the rail bridge and the two railway lines.
He didn’t want to overshadow the events surrounding Remembrance.
There is no defence after this weekend and he should get rid of her before the SC ruling . She certainly won’t accept a demotion
so if he tries that she’ll just resign from the cabinet .
https://www.bluewateryachting.com/news/summer-fireworks-on-the-riviera-466
Every saturday over Cap Ferrat.......
Darts, from the alcohol? Horseracing?
Now if the poster wants to question Israel's right to exist, that is your right but you seem fairly non-understanding / non-fussed as to the historic conditions that led to the creation of Israel.
I think what really winds me up most about the sort of post re questioning of Israel's right to exist is the double standards often showed by such posters. Questioning Jewish Israel's right to exist is all fine and easy to state but start raising questions about theocratic Muslim states such as Iran or why Hamas butchering unarmed people is just wrong with no need for a "but..." and we start to get all the equivocation, talk about "context" and that the situation is "complex" and that Islamophobia is on the rise.
On the last point, btw, does anyone know of any attacks on Mosques, Muslims etc specifically due to what is happening in the Middle East? The anti-Jewish intimidation has been well documented but I have not read anything in the regional or national press of actual incidents.
The Iranian nation (or the nation that has existed within those approximate borders for thousands of years) cannot and should not be questioned. Nor should the Israeli nation.
The Iranian state is in my view illegitimate and could legitimately be replaced by an alternative way of leading the Iranian nation.
ETA: in particular I was responding to JJ’s characterisation of Israel as a ‘religious state’. Iran can be similarly characterised and I think in Iran’s case (and arguably in Israel’s) that religious element is what has become over time so illegitimate.
Then there's the absolute fraud and corruption in the sport, which you ignore.
Green replied: “A week is a long time in politics.”
How did Britain come to this? The accidental logics of Britain's neoliberal settlement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGRvpppzA8E
People
Abby Innes: https://nitter.net/innes_abby
Ros Taylor (Rosamund Taylor): https://nitter.net/rosamundmtaylor
Gwyn Bevan
Books
Late Soviet Britain: Why Materialist Utopias Fail
The UK's Changing Democracy: The 2018 Democratic Audit
The Future of Trust: part of Melville House UK’s new FUTURES series
How Did Britain Come to This?: A century of systemic failures of governance
Shopping
https://www.waterstones.com/book/late-soviet-britain/abby-innes/9781009373630
https://www.waterstones.com/book/the-uks-changing-democracy/patrick-dunleavy/alice-park/9781909890442
https://www.waterstones.com/book/the-future-of-trust/ros-taylor/9781911545675
https://www.waterstones.com/book/how-did-britain-come-to-this/gwyn-bevan/9781911712107
About a third of Iran's population are Azeri, Kurds, Arabs, Balochi, Turkoman and others.
Rather similar to Russia - neither of whom attract the interest of 'anti-colonial' posturers.
BBC News - Police petrol-bombed in Edinburgh Bonfire Night disorder
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-67328978
I mean, it's fine - not many people like to admit they got it wrong - but it's not particularly edifying either, or a way of winning respect.
Shame.
https://twitter.com/TheRealBuzz/status/1723521830131028405/photo/2
A living legend.
Churches are impressive buildings but spiritually leave me cold (aside from the bells, of course). Religion somehow much more convincing outdoors in the November drizzle.
The Russian army, reinforcing the impression of incompetence it has given ever since the invasion, is of course mounting a huge attack in the Avdiivka area right now.
Reportedly a third assault wave of 40,000 men is about to be thrown in. Ten days of rain are forecast, with temperatures remaining well above freezing. British military intelligence has already suggested that Russian losses in Avdiivka will be the worst in any operation this year, and that’s saying something.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/11/12/ukraine-counteroffensive-failed-russia-putin-war-plan/
Together, extremists on both sides have managed to make the Met look good, ffs.
The rest of the sporting world doesn’t seem to need to segregate supporters. Or require an army of police to prevent a riot.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/britain/graham-lee-in-intensive-care-following-a-fall-at-newcastle-on-friday-evening-afzeH7J0FJYw/
Why should we expect the dimmer aspects of its lower levels not to learn its morality from the top?
"What BLM and the Remembrance Day protests had in common
Sean Thomas"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-blm-and-the-remembrance-day-protests-had-in-common/
They were angry at being excluded from Whitehall for the 2 minutes’ silence. Once they shoved there way in, they were entirely respectful
They then went on to have ugly scuffles tinged with racism, so they certainly weren’t nice people. But they didn’t actually disrupt the service, if we are going to be strictly accurate
Shame. At least I recognise your shining brilliance, though.
Maybe part of the GHQ line, ie. of a larger linear barrier, rather than defence of local assets? Some poking around suggests that this might be so.
https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-1352-1/dissemination/pdf/Cambs_grey_lit_reports/GL2048_A_Granhams_Farm_Great_Shelford.pdf
Before then, I'd assumed it was some sort of very strong survey point, like an OS benchmark pin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPFrTBppRfw
More importantly, I think the government now has to do something about these marches. Can they really be allowed to continue, weekend after weekend? They will only get uglier and more intimidating for Jews
Difficult
Rishi Sunak’s dilemma:
He has run out of patience with Suella Braverman and the Tory MP fury this week has been white hot
But the Home Secretary’s ardent backers warn they are prepared for civil war, with resignations threatened
https://t.co/Gu5WvUHSwM
Armenia has not attacked Turkey. The Chinese Uyghurs have not attacked China. Those groups do not want to destroy those countries.
Whereas Hamas have attacked Israel in a massive manner, and want - to their core - to destroy Israel.
I mean, that might be an irrelevance to you, but not to Israrelis. Or anyone who actually cares for people.
He at least seems to be pretty good at the meeting complete strangers briefly part of the job.
That rating behind her second on right looks as if he's thinking 'I wouldn't say no'.
PS: @Nigelb @Theuniondivvie
Cheers for clearing up the confusion on PT around the post where I reference NON racist @Casino_Royale - it would have been most unfortunate (!) if that had been left with the eponymous under the diametrically wrong impression.