Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

The challenge facing Sunak – politicalbetting.com

2

Comments

  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,553
    This is absolutely brilliant.
    Also, Jonathan Davies is hugely entertaining and is a national treasure. Hooray that the BBC still employssuch people occasionally.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,730
    We need Wales to get a penalty kick from 42 yards in the 83rd minute
  • Options
    Leon said:

    We need Wales to get a penalty kick from 42 yards in the 83rd minute

    No.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,730

    Leon said:

    We need Wales to get a penalty kick from 42 yards in the 83rd minute

    No.
    lol. Where is your sense of romance?

    This would be a game for the ages
  • Options
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    We need Wales to get a penalty kick from 42 yards in the 83rd minute

    No.
    lol. Where is your sense of romance?

    This would be a game for the ages
    Years of abuse from Welsh rugby fans has had an impact on me.

    Anyone but Wales for me.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,553
    Some bloody awful facial hair on show, mind.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,245
    OK.

    So the Redis plugin for Wordpress does not appear to be compatible with Vanilla.

    Sigh.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,106
    Cookie said:

    Some bloody awful facial hair on show, mind.

    When beards came back into fashion around 10 years ago Rugby players, on average more likely to be bearded than the average person, seemed to compensate by growing sillier facial hair. They get away with it because they are man-mountains.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,803
    Nigelb said:

    darkage said:

    On the subject of computer/data management systems, I have been working in the public sector in an operational delivery role and found that the best systems are those that are effectively unchanged since the first wave of computerisation 30 years ago (the 'legacy' systems). I've worked with two really poor 'modernised' systems over the last decade that have promised the world but just lost masses of data, causing no end of problems. When I was in a government office we had a version of Horizon (not sure if it is linked to the post office situation) which was absolutely fine, the organisation I worked for saw sense and never pursued its various trials of alternative systems, much to the annoyance of the endless stream of change consultants inflicted upon us. The industry I work in seems to fundamentally work in email, word documents and PDF's, saved on shared drives; a system that has existed unchanged for at least 25 years.

    I just hope that they never mess with PDFs, which make for great document archiving for the non experts (me).

    I note Ofsted inspectors were threatened with disciplinary action if they tried to use Word, rather than the flaky proprietary system.
    I worked for a while in a place where they had moved everything on to google drive. It was an absolute mess. Everything that came in externally was changed to the google versions of word, excel, etc when being saved. So you would get these legal agreements in word with track changes and then all the track changes would disappear when it got converted on to the google system.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,123
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    I've actually got an idea for a thread now.

    Boris Johnson = James Francis Edward Stuart

    Nadine Dorries= Charles Edward Stuart

    Rishi Sunak = George II

    (Yes it is a work in progress)

    And who is Mary of Modena then? Not to mention Lord George Murray (poor sod).
    Yeah, it is still a work in progress.

    Mary of Modena = Liz Truss?

    Lord Murray = Now that is really tricky. Lisa Cameron?
    Or the press lady who got sacked over the parties or fibs or whatever? Called Araminta or something?

    Allegra Stratton.

    Not to be confused with our own @AramintaMoonbeamQC
    That's her. Very unfairly blamed, like Murray.
  • Options
    Hurrah for Scotland.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,123

    Hurrah for Scotland.

    Oh, are they playing the French?
  • Options
    Carnyx said:

    Hurrah for Scotland.

    Oh, are they playing the French?
    Worse, they are playing Wales.

    I cheer for France when they play Wales.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,730
    So cruel
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,561

    Carnyx said:

    Hurrah for Scotland.

    Oh, are they playing the French?
    Worse, they are playing Wales.

    I cheer for France when they play Wales.
    Supposing Wales played a team owned by Max Verstappen?
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,399
    Never in doubt :*
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Hurrah for Scotland.

    Oh, are they playing the French?
    Worse, they are playing Wales.

    I cheer for France when they play Wales.
    Supposing Wales played a team owned by Max Verstappen?
    I'd be belting out Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau with gusto.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,730
    Wales should be heartened by that

    Extremely young team, deeply naive, and they showed courage, passion and lots of talent
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,561
    Hello, is that Max Verstappen's agent? Ah, good. I just wondered if he'd had any more thoughts about buying the England rugby team...
  • Options
    A quarter of Scots — and nearly half of all unionists — believe that devolution has been bad for the country, a poll has found.

    In research likely to concern Holyrood politicians, a new poll for The Sunday Times suggests eroding satisfaction with Scotland’s 25-year-old constitutional compromise.

    Norstat, formerly called Panelbase, found that 50 per cent of Scots thought that, overall, devolution had been good and 26 per cent that it had been bad. A further 22 per cent did not know and 2 per cent would not say.

    This marks a significant drop since the same question was asked to mark the tenth anniversary of the Scottish parliament opening. A poll by Populus asked the same question in 2009 and found 70 per cent thought devolution was a good thing while 18 per cent said it was bad.

    Some of the big perceived popular achievements of devolution were made or mooted in its first decade under the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition and SNP minority administration. These included free university tuition fees, free personal care and free prescriptions....

    ..The latest poll found that the share of No voters who thought devolution was bad was 49 per cent. Only 6 per cent of Yes voters agreed.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/quarter-of-scots-think-devolution-has-been-bad-for-the-country-7x8pjw632
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,163
    Leon said:

    Wales should be heartened by that

    Extremely young team, deeply naive, and they showed courage, passion and lots of talent

    Scotland need to work on their discipline. They just list it completely in the second half.

    Better to concede a try when your lead is that big than to get sinbinned.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,163
    edited February 3
    ydoethur said:

    Hello, is that Max Verstappen's agent? Ah, good. I just wondered if he'd had any more thoughts about buying the England rugby team...

    That's evil.
    Hamilton can probably outbid him, though.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,561
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Hello, is that Max Verstappen's agent? Ah, good. I just wondered if he'd had any more thoughts about buying the England rugby team...

    That's evil.
    It's just bull.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,730
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Wales should be heartened by that

    Extremely young team, deeply naive, and they showed courage, passion and lots of talent

    Scotland need to work on their discipline. They just list it completely in the second half.

    Better to concede a try when your lead is that big than to get sinbinned.
    Yes, but Wales have some quicksilver backs

    At one point they nearly scored the try of the century
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,730
    I thought this Six Nations might be dull!

    lol
  • Options
    Calling Rangers fans ‘huns’ not a sectarian slur, judges rule as they overturn decision

    Supporter has religious prejudice conviction quashed

    A sheriff wrongly concluded that the term “hun” was a form of religiously aggravated abuse against Protestants, a panel of Scotland’s most senior judges has found.

    In a ruling that clarifies the glossary of offensive language, appeal judges have concluded that the expression does not contain a religious aspect or indicate malice or ill-will towards Protestant people.

    The court was told that the word “hun” was a non-religious slur that was used to describe Rangers fans but had historically also been used by Rangers fans to describe Celtic supporters. This was because Rangers fans believed their Glasgow rivals had supported the Nazi war effort.

    The ruling centred on the case of David Di Pinto, 39, who was arrested during the Scottish League Cup final between Celtic and Hibs at Hampden Park in Glasgow in December 2021 for verbally abusing police officers as “huns”.

    Sheriff Anthony McGlennan found Di Pinto guilty at Glasgow sheriff court of a religious prejudice aggravation to his breach of the peace conviction, and fined him £500. The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/calling-rangers-fans-huns-not-a-sectarian-slur-judges-rule-as-they-overturn-decision-5l7cxj620
  • Options
    Leon said:

    I thought this Six Nations might be dull!

    lol

    Leondamus strikes again.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,123
    edited February 3

    Carnyx said:

    I've actually got an idea for a thread now.

    Boris Johnson = James Francis Edward Stuart

    Nadine Dorries= Charles Edward Stuart

    Rishi Sunak = George II

    (Yes it is a work in progress)

    And who is Mary of Modena then? Not to mention Lord George Murray (poor sod).
    And the Butcher?
    We have to find out who gets the parts of Jamie VII and Wullie I, before we can see how the slotting in for Cumberland works. Mind, the likes of Rory the Tory did need to get a metaphorical ship to France pdq, with or without the help of Miss Macdonald.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,232
    If Sunak can get a Labour majority under 100 he would be doing well on current polls
  • Options

    Can we accept yet that on the current polling, SKS is looking very much like a Tony Blair?

    Someone who arrives popular and with a massive majority and a good economic situation, trashes it all, harms the young most particularly, takes us to war on false pretences and ends his tenure with the economy in ruins?

    I rather hope not. Though it seems that line falls at the first hurdle.
    How are you planning to vote?

    And how's the baby?
    Currently uncertain.

    I've been impressed by Starmer talking about the housing situation and am waiting to see if he has any follow-through on policies on that, but not holding my breath. If he does, he'll win my vote for his party for only the second time.

    My babies are turning ten and eight this year, so guessing you're thinking of someone else with the question, but thanks for asking lol.
  • Options
    jamesdoylejamesdoyle Posts: 659
    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Some bloody awful facial hair on show, mind.

    When beards came back into fashion around 10 years ago Rugby players, on average more likely to be bearded than the average person, seemed to compensate by growing sillier facial hair. They get away with it because they are man-mountains.
    I have met Joe Marler, and I endorse this message
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,561

    Calling Rangers fans ‘huns’ not a sectarian slur, judges rule as they overturn decision

    Supporter has religious prejudice conviction quashed

    A sheriff wrongly concluded that the term “hun” was a form of religiously aggravated abuse against Protestants, a panel of Scotland’s most senior judges has found.

    In a ruling that clarifies the glossary of offensive language, appeal judges have concluded that the expression does not contain a religious aspect or indicate malice or ill-will towards Protestant people.

    The court was told that the word “hun” was a non-religious slur that was used to describe Rangers fans but had historically also been used by Rangers fans to describe Celtic supporters. This was because Rangers fans believed their Glasgow rivals had supported the Nazi war effort.

    The ruling centred on the case of David Di Pinto, 39, who was arrested during the Scottish League Cup final between Celtic and Hibs at Hampden Park in Glasgow in December 2021 for verbally abusing police officers as “huns”.

    Sheriff Anthony McGlennan found Di Pinto guilty at Glasgow sheriff court of a religious prejudice aggravation to his breach of the peace conviction, and fined him £500. The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/calling-rangers-fans-huns-not-a-sectarian-slur-judges-rule-as-they-overturn-decision-5l7cxj620

    Bish Boche?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,232

    A quarter of Scots — and nearly half of all unionists — believe that devolution has been bad for the country, a poll has found.

    In research likely to concern Holyrood politicians, a new poll for The Sunday Times suggests eroding satisfaction with Scotland’s 25-year-old constitutional compromise.

    Norstat, formerly called Panelbase, found that 50 per cent of Scots thought that, overall, devolution had been good and 26 per cent that it had been bad. A further 22 per cent did not know and 2 per cent would not say.

    This marks a significant drop since the same question was asked to mark the tenth anniversary of the Scottish parliament opening. A poll by Populus asked the same question in 2009 and found 70 per cent thought devolution was a good thing while 18 per cent said it was bad.

    Some of the big perceived popular achievements of devolution were made or mooted in its first decade under the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition and SNP minority administration. These included free university tuition fees, free personal care and free prescriptions....

    ..The latest poll found that the share of No voters who thought devolution was bad was 49 per cent. Only 6 per cent of Yes voters agreed.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/quarter-of-scots-think-devolution-has-been-bad-for-the-country-7x8pjw632

    26% close to the 25% the Scottish Conservatives got in 2019
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,106

    Calling Rangers fans ‘huns’ not a sectarian slur, judges rule as they overturn decision

    Supporter has religious prejudice conviction quashed

    A sheriff wrongly concluded that the term “hun” was a form of religiously aggravated abuse against Protestants, a panel of Scotland’s most senior judges has found.

    In a ruling that clarifies the glossary of offensive language, appeal judges have concluded that the expression does not contain a religious aspect or indicate malice or ill-will towards Protestant people.

    The court was told that the word “hun” was a non-religious slur that was used to describe Rangers fans but had historically also been used by Rangers fans to describe Celtic supporters. This was because Rangers fans believed their Glasgow rivals had supported the Nazi war effort.

    The ruling centred on the case of David Di Pinto, 39, who was arrested during the Scottish League Cup final between Celtic and Hibs at Hampden Park in Glasgow in December 2021 for verbally abusing police officers as “huns”.

    Sheriff Anthony McGlennan found Di Pinto guilty at Glasgow sheriff court of a religious prejudice aggravation to his breach of the peace conviction, and fined him £500. The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/calling-rangers-fans-huns-not-a-sectarian-slur-judges-rule-as-they-overturn-decision-5l7cxj620

    Can't say I really like the idea slurring others is fine if non religious but not fine if it is religious.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,561
    HYUFD said:

    A quarter of Scots — and nearly half of all unionists — believe that devolution has been bad for the country, a poll has found.

    In research likely to concern Holyrood politicians, a new poll for The Sunday Times suggests eroding satisfaction with Scotland’s 25-year-old constitutional compromise.

    Norstat, formerly called Panelbase, found that 50 per cent of Scots thought that, overall, devolution had been good and 26 per cent that it had been bad. A further 22 per cent did not know and 2 per cent would not say.

    This marks a significant drop since the same question was asked to mark the tenth anniversary of the Scottish parliament opening. A poll by Populus asked the same question in 2009 and found 70 per cent thought devolution was a good thing while 18 per cent said it was bad.

    Some of the big perceived popular achievements of devolution were made or mooted in its first decade under the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition and SNP minority administration. These included free university tuition fees, free personal care and free prescriptions....

    ..The latest poll found that the share of No voters who thought devolution was bad was 49 per cent. Only 6 per cent of Yes voters agreed.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/quarter-of-scots-think-devolution-has-been-bad-for-the-country-7x8pjw632

    26% close to the 25% the Scottish Conservatives got in 2019
    Come back to us when they exceed the 28.6% they got under Ruth Davidson...
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,675
    If he had a shred of dignity he'd pull a political go away.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,833
    edited February 3

    Calling Rangers fans ‘huns’ not a sectarian slur, judges rule as they overturn decision

    Supporter has religious prejudice conviction quashed

    A sheriff wrongly concluded that the term “hun” was a form of religiously aggravated abuse against Protestants, a panel of Scotland’s most senior judges has found.

    In a ruling that clarifies the glossary of offensive language, appeal judges have concluded that the expression does not contain a religious aspect or indicate malice or ill-will towards Protestant people.

    The court was told that the word “hun” was a non-religious slur that was used to describe Rangers fans but had historically also been used by Rangers fans to describe Celtic supporters. This was because Rangers fans believed their Glasgow rivals had supported the Nazi war effort.

    The ruling centred on the case of David Di Pinto, 39, who was arrested during the Scottish League Cup final between Celtic and Hibs at Hampden Park in Glasgow in December 2021 for verbally abusing police officers as “huns”.

    Sheriff Anthony McGlennan found Di Pinto guilty at Glasgow sheriff court of a religious prejudice aggravation to his breach of the peace conviction, and fined him £500. The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/calling-rangers-fans-huns-not-a-sectarian-slur-judges-rule-as-they-overturn-decision-5l7cxj620

    Vandalising the thread, eh?
  • Options
    kle4 said:

    Calling Rangers fans ‘huns’ not a sectarian slur, judges rule as they overturn decision

    Supporter has religious prejudice conviction quashed

    A sheriff wrongly concluded that the term “hun” was a form of religiously aggravated abuse against Protestants, a panel of Scotland’s most senior judges has found.

    In a ruling that clarifies the glossary of offensive language, appeal judges have concluded that the expression does not contain a religious aspect or indicate malice or ill-will towards Protestant people.

    The court was told that the word “hun” was a non-religious slur that was used to describe Rangers fans but had historically also been used by Rangers fans to describe Celtic supporters. This was because Rangers fans believed their Glasgow rivals had supported the Nazi war effort.

    The ruling centred on the case of David Di Pinto, 39, who was arrested during the Scottish League Cup final between Celtic and Hibs at Hampden Park in Glasgow in December 2021 for verbally abusing police officers as “huns”.

    Sheriff Anthony McGlennan found Di Pinto guilty at Glasgow sheriff court of a religious prejudice aggravation to his breach of the peace conviction, and fined him £500. The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/calling-rangers-fans-huns-not-a-sectarian-slur-judges-rule-as-they-overturn-decision-5l7cxj620

    Can't say I really like the idea slurring others is fine if non religious but not fine if it is religious.
    Worse, they seem to be saying that its fine if its racial but not if its religious.

    Not sure what they're thinking with that one.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,399
    edited February 3

    Calling Rangers fans ‘huns’ not a sectarian slur, judges rule as they overturn decision

    Supporter has religious prejudice conviction quashed

    A sheriff wrongly concluded that the term “hun” was a form of religiously aggravated abuse against Protestants, a panel of Scotland’s most senior judges has found.

    In a ruling that clarifies the glossary of offensive language, appeal judges have concluded that the expression does not contain a religious aspect or indicate malice or ill-will towards Protestant people.

    The court was told that the word “hun” was a non-religious slur that was used to describe Rangers fans but had historically also been used by Rangers fans to describe Celtic supporters. This was because Rangers fans believed their Glasgow rivals had supported the Nazi war effort.

    The ruling centred on the case of David Di Pinto, 39, who was arrested during the Scottish League Cup final between Celtic and Hibs at Hampden Park in Glasgow in December 2021 for verbally abusing police officers as “huns”.

    Sheriff Anthony McGlennan found Di Pinto guilty at Glasgow sheriff court of a religious prejudice aggravation to his breach of the peace conviction, and fined him £500. The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/calling-rangers-fans-huns-not-a-sectarian-slur-judges-rule-as-they-overturn-decision-5l7cxj620

    The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries, and Manchester in the 21st.
  • Options

    Calling Rangers fans ‘huns’ not a sectarian slur, judges rule as they overturn decision

    Supporter has religious prejudice conviction quashed

    A sheriff wrongly concluded that the term “hun” was a form of religiously aggravated abuse against Protestants, a panel of Scotland’s most senior judges has found.

    In a ruling that clarifies the glossary of offensive language, appeal judges have concluded that the expression does not contain a religious aspect or indicate malice or ill-will towards Protestant people.

    The court was told that the word “hun” was a non-religious slur that was used to describe Rangers fans but had historically also been used by Rangers fans to describe Celtic supporters. This was because Rangers fans believed their Glasgow rivals had supported the Nazi war effort.

    The ruling centred on the case of David Di Pinto, 39, who was arrested during the Scottish League Cup final between Celtic and Hibs at Hampden Park in Glasgow in December 2021 for verbally abusing police officers as “huns”.

    Sheriff Anthony McGlennan found Di Pinto guilty at Glasgow sheriff court of a religious prejudice aggravation to his breach of the peace conviction, and fined him £500. The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/calling-rangers-fans-huns-not-a-sectarian-slur-judges-rule-as-they-overturn-decision-5l7cxj620

    The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries, and Manchester in the 20th.
    A pedant writes it was Manchester in the 21st century.
  • Options

    Calling Rangers fans ‘huns’ not a sectarian slur, judges rule as they overturn decision

    Supporter has religious prejudice conviction quashed

    A sheriff wrongly concluded that the term “hun” was a form of religiously aggravated abuse against Protestants, a panel of Scotland’s most senior judges has found.

    In a ruling that clarifies the glossary of offensive language, appeal judges have concluded that the expression does not contain a religious aspect or indicate malice or ill-will towards Protestant people.

    The court was told that the word “hun” was a non-religious slur that was used to describe Rangers fans but had historically also been used by Rangers fans to describe Celtic supporters. This was because Rangers fans believed their Glasgow rivals had supported the Nazi war effort.

    The ruling centred on the case of David Di Pinto, 39, who was arrested during the Scottish League Cup final between Celtic and Hibs at Hampden Park in Glasgow in December 2021 for verbally abusing police officers as “huns”.

    Sheriff Anthony McGlennan found Di Pinto guilty at Glasgow sheriff court of a religious prejudice aggravation to his breach of the peace conviction, and fined him £500. The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/calling-rangers-fans-huns-not-a-sectarian-slur-judges-rule-as-they-overturn-decision-5l7cxj620

    The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries, and Manchester in the 20th.
    U ok hun?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,833

    Calling Rangers fans ‘huns’ not a sectarian slur, judges rule as they overturn decision

    Supporter has religious prejudice conviction quashed

    A sheriff wrongly concluded that the term “hun” was a form of religiously aggravated abuse against Protestants, a panel of Scotland’s most senior judges has found.

    In a ruling that clarifies the glossary of offensive language, appeal judges have concluded that the expression does not contain a religious aspect or indicate malice or ill-will towards Protestant people.

    The court was told that the word “hun” was a non-religious slur that was used to describe Rangers fans but had historically also been used by Rangers fans to describe Celtic supporters. This was because Rangers fans believed their Glasgow rivals had supported the Nazi war effort.

    The ruling centred on the case of David Di Pinto, 39, who was arrested during the Scottish League Cup final between Celtic and Hibs at Hampden Park in Glasgow in December 2021 for verbally abusing police officers as “huns”.

    Sheriff Anthony McGlennan found Di Pinto guilty at Glasgow sheriff court of a religious prejudice aggravation to his breach of the peace conviction, and fined him £500. The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/calling-rangers-fans-huns-not-a-sectarian-slur-judges-rule-as-they-overturn-decision-5l7cxj620

    The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries, and Manchester in the 20th.
    A sobriquet adopted by Kaiser Fuckwit, himself.

    “ If you come before the enemy, he will be defeated! No quarter will be given! Prisoners will not be taken! Whoever falls into your hands is forfeited! Just as a thousand years ago the Huns under their king Etzel made a name for themselves, one that even today makes them seem mighty in history and legend, so may the name Germany be affirmed by you in such a way in China that no Chinese will ever again dare to look cross-eyed at a German!”

    — Wilhelm II

    The bit where the Germans turned up *after* the Boxer Boxing Match was over and started Hunning was considered OTT. By people like King Leopold of Belgium.

    When Ole’ Leo thinks you are break dancing on the locals too hard….
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,399

    Calling Rangers fans ‘huns’ not a sectarian slur, judges rule as they overturn decision

    Supporter has religious prejudice conviction quashed

    A sheriff wrongly concluded that the term “hun” was a form of religiously aggravated abuse against Protestants, a panel of Scotland’s most senior judges has found.

    In a ruling that clarifies the glossary of offensive language, appeal judges have concluded that the expression does not contain a religious aspect or indicate malice or ill-will towards Protestant people.

    The court was told that the word “hun” was a non-religious slur that was used to describe Rangers fans but had historically also been used by Rangers fans to describe Celtic supporters. This was because Rangers fans believed their Glasgow rivals had supported the Nazi war effort.

    The ruling centred on the case of David Di Pinto, 39, who was arrested during the Scottish League Cup final between Celtic and Hibs at Hampden Park in Glasgow in December 2021 for verbally abusing police officers as “huns”.

    Sheriff Anthony McGlennan found Di Pinto guilty at Glasgow sheriff court of a religious prejudice aggravation to his breach of the peace conviction, and fined him £500. The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/calling-rangers-fans-huns-not-a-sectarian-slur-judges-rule-as-they-overturn-decision-5l7cxj620

    The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries, and Manchester in the 20th.
    U ok hun?
    Stop slurring me.
  • Options
    RWPRWP Posts: 9

    RWP said:

    Will there be a thread on the odds for next Welsh FM? If Gething wins, all 6 of the top political roles in the UK and Ireland will be no longer held by white men (along with Sunak, Yusuf, Varadkar, O'Neill and Pengelly). In 2014 all 6 roles were held by white men (Cameron, Salmond, Jones, Robinson, McGuinness and Kenny).

    I did a thread on that in December

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/12/19/replacing-the-irreplaceable/
    any chance of an update please? There are only two candidates but I'm not aware of any polling of the selectorate.
  • Options
    RWP said:

    RWP said:

    Will there be a thread on the odds for next Welsh FM? If Gething wins, all 6 of the top political roles in the UK and Ireland will be no longer held by white men (along with Sunak, Yusuf, Varadkar, O'Neill and Pengelly). In 2014 all 6 roles were held by white men (Cameron, Salmond, Jones, Robinson, McGuinness and Kenny).

    I did a thread on that in December

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/12/19/replacing-the-irreplaceable/
    any chance of an update please? There are only two candidates but I'm not aware of any polling of the selectorate.
    I shall aim to write one next week.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,399
    edited February 3

    Calling Rangers fans ‘huns’ not a sectarian slur, judges rule as they overturn decision

    Supporter has religious prejudice conviction quashed

    A sheriff wrongly concluded that the term “hun” was a form of religiously aggravated abuse against Protestants, a panel of Scotland’s most senior judges has found.

    In a ruling that clarifies the glossary of offensive language, appeal judges have concluded that the expression does not contain a religious aspect or indicate malice or ill-will towards Protestant people.

    The court was told that the word “hun” was a non-religious slur that was used to describe Rangers fans but had historically also been used by Rangers fans to describe Celtic supporters. This was because Rangers fans believed their Glasgow rivals had supported the Nazi war effort.

    The ruling centred on the case of David Di Pinto, 39, who was arrested during the Scottish League Cup final between Celtic and Hibs at Hampden Park in Glasgow in December 2021 for verbally abusing police officers as “huns”.

    Sheriff Anthony McGlennan found Di Pinto guilty at Glasgow sheriff court of a religious prejudice aggravation to his breach of the peace conviction, and fined him £500. The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/calling-rangers-fans-huns-not-a-sectarian-slur-judges-rule-as-they-overturn-decision-5l7cxj620

    The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries, and Manchester in the 20th.
    A sobriquet adopted by Kaiser Fuckwit, himself.

    “ If you come before the enemy, he will be defeated! No quarter will be given! Prisoners will not be taken! Whoever falls into your hands is forfeited! Just as a thousand years ago the Huns under their king Etzel made a name for themselves, one that even today makes them seem mighty in history and legend, so may the name Germany be affirmed by you in such a way in China that no Chinese will ever again dare to look cross-eyed at a German!”

    — Wilhelm II

    The bit where the Germans turned up *after* the Boxer Boxing Match was over and started Hunning was considered OTT. By people like King Leopold of Belgium.

    When Ole’ Leo thinks you are break dancing on the locals too hard….
    'Huns' is a bit like the 'N' word, plenty of..er..Huns embrace the term for their own use, it's only when Taigs, Tims and assorted Fenian bastards use it that they turn into big, blubbing snowflakes.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,833

    Calling Rangers fans ‘huns’ not a sectarian slur, judges rule as they overturn decision

    Supporter has religious prejudice conviction quashed

    A sheriff wrongly concluded that the term “hun” was a form of religiously aggravated abuse against Protestants, a panel of Scotland’s most senior judges has found.

    In a ruling that clarifies the glossary of offensive language, appeal judges have concluded that the expression does not contain a religious aspect or indicate malice or ill-will towards Protestant people.

    The court was told that the word “hun” was a non-religious slur that was used to describe Rangers fans but had historically also been used by Rangers fans to describe Celtic supporters. This was because Rangers fans believed their Glasgow rivals had supported the Nazi war effort.

    The ruling centred on the case of David Di Pinto, 39, who was arrested during the Scottish League Cup final between Celtic and Hibs at Hampden Park in Glasgow in December 2021 for verbally abusing police officers as “huns”.

    Sheriff Anthony McGlennan found Di Pinto guilty at Glasgow sheriff court of a religious prejudice aggravation to his breach of the peace conviction, and fined him £500. The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/calling-rangers-fans-huns-not-a-sectarian-slur-judges-rule-as-they-overturn-decision-5l7cxj620

    The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries, and Manchester in the 20th.
    U ok hun?
    Stop slurring me.
    Is that sluuuuuuuuuuurrrrring?

    Or is that a Scotch Question?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,163
    kle4 said:

    Calling Rangers fans ‘huns’ not a sectarian slur, judges rule as they overturn decision

    Supporter has religious prejudice conviction quashed

    A sheriff wrongly concluded that the term “hun” was a form of religiously aggravated abuse against Protestants, a panel of Scotland’s most senior judges has found.

    In a ruling that clarifies the glossary of offensive language, appeal judges have concluded that the expression does not contain a religious aspect or indicate malice or ill-will towards Protestant people.

    The court was told that the word “hun” was a non-religious slur that was used to describe Rangers fans but had historically also been used by Rangers fans to describe Celtic supporters. This was because Rangers fans believed their Glasgow rivals had supported the Nazi war effort.

    The ruling centred on the case of David Di Pinto, 39, who was arrested during the Scottish League Cup final between Celtic and Hibs at Hampden Park in Glasgow in December 2021 for verbally abusing police officers as “huns”.

    Sheriff Anthony McGlennan found Di Pinto guilty at Glasgow sheriff court of a religious prejudice aggravation to his breach of the peace conviction, and fined him £500. The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/calling-rangers-fans-huns-not-a-sectarian-slur-judges-rule-as-they-overturn-decision-5l7cxj620

    Can't say I really like the idea slurring others is fine if non religious but not fine if it is religious.
    You pagan.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,561

    Calling Rangers fans ‘huns’ not a sectarian slur, judges rule as they overturn decision

    Supporter has religious prejudice conviction quashed

    A sheriff wrongly concluded that the term “hun” was a form of religiously aggravated abuse against Protestants, a panel of Scotland’s most senior judges has found.

    In a ruling that clarifies the glossary of offensive language, appeal judges have concluded that the expression does not contain a religious aspect or indicate malice or ill-will towards Protestant people.

    The court was told that the word “hun” was a non-religious slur that was used to describe Rangers fans but had historically also been used by Rangers fans to describe Celtic supporters. This was because Rangers fans believed their Glasgow rivals had supported the Nazi war effort.

    The ruling centred on the case of David Di Pinto, 39, who was arrested during the Scottish League Cup final between Celtic and Hibs at Hampden Park in Glasgow in December 2021 for verbally abusing police officers as “huns”.

    Sheriff Anthony McGlennan found Di Pinto guilty at Glasgow sheriff court of a religious prejudice aggravation to his breach of the peace conviction, and fined him £500. The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/calling-rangers-fans-huns-not-a-sectarian-slur-judges-rule-as-they-overturn-decision-5l7cxj620

    The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries, and Manchester in the 20th.
    U ok hun?
    Stop slurring me.
    Are you telling him where he goth off?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,106
    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    Calling Rangers fans ‘huns’ not a sectarian slur, judges rule as they overturn decision

    Supporter has religious prejudice conviction quashed

    A sheriff wrongly concluded that the term “hun” was a form of religiously aggravated abuse against Protestants, a panel of Scotland’s most senior judges has found.

    In a ruling that clarifies the glossary of offensive language, appeal judges have concluded that the expression does not contain a religious aspect or indicate malice or ill-will towards Protestant people.

    The court was told that the word “hun” was a non-religious slur that was used to describe Rangers fans but had historically also been used by Rangers fans to describe Celtic supporters. This was because Rangers fans believed their Glasgow rivals had supported the Nazi war effort.

    The ruling centred on the case of David Di Pinto, 39, who was arrested during the Scottish League Cup final between Celtic and Hibs at Hampden Park in Glasgow in December 2021 for verbally abusing police officers as “huns”.

    Sheriff Anthony McGlennan found Di Pinto guilty at Glasgow sheriff court of a religious prejudice aggravation to his breach of the peace conviction, and fined him £500. The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/calling-rangers-fans-huns-not-a-sectarian-slur-judges-rule-as-they-overturn-decision-5l7cxj620

    Can't say I really like the idea slurring others is fine if non religious but not fine if it is religious.
    You pagan.
    Nah, I'm a Muggletonian.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,106
    edited February 3
    ydoethur said:

    Calling Rangers fans ‘huns’ not a sectarian slur, judges rule as they overturn decision

    Supporter has religious prejudice conviction quashed

    A sheriff wrongly concluded that the term “hun” was a form of religiously aggravated abuse against Protestants, a panel of Scotland’s most senior judges has found.

    In a ruling that clarifies the glossary of offensive language, appeal judges have concluded that the expression does not contain a religious aspect or indicate malice or ill-will towards Protestant people.

    The court was told that the word “hun” was a non-religious slur that was used to describe Rangers fans but had historically also been used by Rangers fans to describe Celtic supporters. This was because Rangers fans believed their Glasgow rivals had supported the Nazi war effort.

    The ruling centred on the case of David Di Pinto, 39, who was arrested during the Scottish League Cup final between Celtic and Hibs at Hampden Park in Glasgow in December 2021 for verbally abusing police officers as “huns”.

    Sheriff Anthony McGlennan found Di Pinto guilty at Glasgow sheriff court of a religious prejudice aggravation to his breach of the peace conviction, and fined him £500. The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/calling-rangers-fans-huns-not-a-sectarian-slur-judges-rule-as-they-overturn-decision-5l7cxj620

    The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries, and Manchester in the 20th.
    U ok hun?
    Stop slurring me.
    Are you telling him where he goth off?
    Stop Vandalising the English language like that.

    Edit: Damn, missed that one was already used.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,561
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Calling Rangers fans ‘huns’ not a sectarian slur, judges rule as they overturn decision

    Supporter has religious prejudice conviction quashed

    A sheriff wrongly concluded that the term “hun” was a form of religiously aggravated abuse against Protestants, a panel of Scotland’s most senior judges has found.

    In a ruling that clarifies the glossary of offensive language, appeal judges have concluded that the expression does not contain a religious aspect or indicate malice or ill-will towards Protestant people.

    The court was told that the word “hun” was a non-religious slur that was used to describe Rangers fans but had historically also been used by Rangers fans to describe Celtic supporters. This was because Rangers fans believed their Glasgow rivals had supported the Nazi war effort.

    The ruling centred on the case of David Di Pinto, 39, who was arrested during the Scottish League Cup final between Celtic and Hibs at Hampden Park in Glasgow in December 2021 for verbally abusing police officers as “huns”.

    Sheriff Anthony McGlennan found Di Pinto guilty at Glasgow sheriff court of a religious prejudice aggravation to his breach of the peace conviction, and fined him £500. The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/calling-rangers-fans-huns-not-a-sectarian-slur-judges-rule-as-they-overturn-decision-5l7cxj620

    The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries, and Manchester in the 20th.
    U ok hun?
    Stop slurring me.
    Are you telling him where he goth off?
    Stop Vandalising the English language like that.

    Edit: Damn, missed that one was already used.
    You lost your way in all these puns. Try keeping a firmer hand on a tiller.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,163
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Calling Rangers fans ‘huns’ not a sectarian slur, judges rule as they overturn decision

    Supporter has religious prejudice conviction quashed

    A sheriff wrongly concluded that the term “hun” was a form of religiously aggravated abuse against Protestants, a panel of Scotland’s most senior judges has found.

    In a ruling that clarifies the glossary of offensive language, appeal judges have concluded that the expression does not contain a religious aspect or indicate malice or ill-will towards Protestant people.

    The court was told that the word “hun” was a non-religious slur that was used to describe Rangers fans but had historically also been used by Rangers fans to describe Celtic supporters. This was because Rangers fans believed their Glasgow rivals had supported the Nazi war effort.

    The ruling centred on the case of David Di Pinto, 39, who was arrested during the Scottish League Cup final between Celtic and Hibs at Hampden Park in Glasgow in December 2021 for verbally abusing police officers as “huns”.

    Sheriff Anthony McGlennan found Di Pinto guilty at Glasgow sheriff court of a religious prejudice aggravation to his breach of the peace conviction, and fined him £500. The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/calling-rangers-fans-huns-not-a-sectarian-slur-judges-rule-as-they-overturn-decision-5l7cxj620

    The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries, and Manchester in the 20th.
    U ok hun?
    Stop slurring me.
    Are you telling him where he goth off?
    Stop Vandalising the English language like that.

    Edit: Damn, missed that one was already used.
    You absolute Boii.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,036
    edited February 3
    13.5 hours straight of test cricket starting at 10 pm
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,163
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Calling Rangers fans ‘huns’ not a sectarian slur, judges rule as they overturn decision

    Supporter has religious prejudice conviction quashed

    A sheriff wrongly concluded that the term “hun” was a form of religiously aggravated abuse against Protestants, a panel of Scotland’s most senior judges has found.

    In a ruling that clarifies the glossary of offensive language, appeal judges have concluded that the expression does not contain a religious aspect or indicate malice or ill-will towards Protestant people.

    The court was told that the word “hun” was a non-religious slur that was used to describe Rangers fans but had historically also been used by Rangers fans to describe Celtic supporters. This was because Rangers fans believed their Glasgow rivals had supported the Nazi war effort.

    The ruling centred on the case of David Di Pinto, 39, who was arrested during the Scottish League Cup final between Celtic and Hibs at Hampden Park in Glasgow in December 2021 for verbally abusing police officers as “huns”.

    Sheriff Anthony McGlennan found Di Pinto guilty at Glasgow sheriff court of a religious prejudice aggravation to his breach of the peace conviction, and fined him £500. The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/calling-rangers-fans-huns-not-a-sectarian-slur-judges-rule-as-they-overturn-decision-5l7cxj620

    The court was told that a “hun” had been a member of a warlike nomadic people from Central Asia who invaded and ravaged Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries, and Manchester in the 20th.
    U ok hun?
    Stop slurring me.
    Are you telling him where he goth off?
    Stop Vandalising the English language like that.

    Edit: Damn, missed that one was already used.
    You lost your way in all these puns. Try keeping a firmer hand on a tiller.
    Frankly, I don’t give a…
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,623
    Pulpstar said:

    13.5 hours straight of test cricket starting at 10 pm

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :lol:
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,596
    "One furious local told MailOnline: '[Luton] is full of obese people. It's the council's fault."

    Daily Mail
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,561

    "One furious local told MailOnline: '[Luton] is full of obese people. It's the council's fault."

    Daily Mail

    He's dead, Gym?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,543
    Pulpstar said:

    13.5 hours straight of test cricket starting at 10 pm

    You think the England match is going to last more than another entire day?
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,480

    RWP said:

    RWP said:

    Will there be a thread on the odds for next Welsh FM? If Gething wins, all 6 of the top political roles in the UK and Ireland will be no longer held by white men (along with Sunak, Yusuf, Varadkar, O'Neill and Pengelly). In 2014 all 6 roles were held by white men (Cameron, Salmond, Jones, Robinson, McGuinness and Kenny).

    I did a thread on that in December

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/12/19/replacing-the-irreplaceable/
    any chance of an update please? There are only two candidates but I'm not aware of any polling of the selectorate.
    I shall aim to write one next week.
    Despite their minority backgrounds. Jeremy is gay and Vaughan has a non-white ethnicity they do share a commonality, which they also share with Drakeford. They are all f*****'
    useless.
  • Options
    Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,643
    edited February 3

    "One furious local told MailOnline: '[Luton] is full of obese people. It's the council's fault."

    Daily Mail

    I had the misfortune to read that article. Apparently the council has allowed too many take-away chicken shops, and has presumably then forced Lutonites to enter them and buy chicken and chips.
    How on earth do statisticians (?) calculate stuff like finding Britain's "fattest town", though? I don't recall an obesity question in the Census.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,399
    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    13.5 hours straight of test cricket starting at 10 pm

    You think the England match is going to last more than another entire day?
    It will.
  • Options
    MJWMJW Posts: 1,400
    kle4 said:

    MJW said:

    Leon said:

    On topic, I am struggling to update my analogies for just how fucked the Tories are.

    The stepmom just doesn't cover it.

    The Tories are a duck. With its head trapped in a drawer, in an opium den at number 7, street 310, Phnom Penh, in about 1936

    And there’s a whole load of laughing foreign legionnaires queuing to have a go

    That’s the Tories; I believe that nicely captures their plight
    Curious thing is that I don't think there's going to be much national pleasure derived from Sacking Sunak, unlike in the duck scenario.

    There was when Blair replaced Major, and (somewhat less) when Cameron replaced Brown. Some were very pleased about the 2016 vote, and some when Johnson went.

    But I'm not getting that vibe. Sunak's got to go, they've all got to go, and come back when they have thought about what they've done and promised to be better in the future. But it's a tedious necessity.

    I imagine getting treatment from the clap clinic is much the same. Perhaps someone who had led a more colourful life can confirm.
    What's happened though is that through his actions and failures, Sunak's become a big part of that. When he first came into No. 10, he had better ratings than his party, more or less because he didn't look like one of the crackpots or liars the Tories had promoted to high-profile jobs and looked vaguely competent.

    In little over a year he's managed to destroy his reputation by tying himself to his party's crackpots to the extent that there would be a huge outburst of joy from those who want rid of the Tories. Or more a sigh of relief that 14 years of failure is finally over. But that will be something to cheer for.
    It's not the whole story that he's tied himself to the crackpots though. Things like bringing in Cameron hardly appeals to that wing of the party. Indeed, that side of the party seems just as unhappy with him as they ever were, or more so, without improving the party's standing with voters on the other end.
    Yeah, I mean the point about the crackpots is that they'll never be happy. Because they believe in fantasies no PM can ever live up to and are liable to scoff the red meat you offer then demand more. Sunak decided, in his wisdom, to appease them and is now paying the price.

    I tend to think of bringing Cameron back as a real desperation move a la Mandy coming back to help Gordon. More so as Cameron has had little if any influence on the direction of the government - it's still blathering on about boats and Brexit benefits. Sunak's still cancelling HS2. The strategy still appears to involve attacking Labour over Net Zero/green stuff.

    What he does give you is someone around the cabinet table with experience to do the job of foreign secretary and be senior enough to shore up an ever weakening PM in cabinet.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,561

    "One furious local told MailOnline: '[Luton] is full of obese people. It's the council's fault."

    Daily Mail

    I had the misfortune to read that article. Apparently the council has allowed too many take-away chicken shops, and has presumably then forced Lutonites to enter them and buy chicken and chips.
    How on earth do statisticians (?) calculate stuff like finding Britain's "fattest town", though? I don't recall an obesity question in the Census.
    They couldn't put too much weight on the responses.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,995
    edited February 3
    ydoethur said:

    "One furious local told MailOnline: '[Luton] is full of obese people. It's the council's fault."

    Daily Mail

    I had the misfortune to read that article. Apparently the council has allowed too many take-away chicken shops, and has presumably then forced Lutonites to enter them and buy chicken and chips.
    How on earth do statisticians (?) calculate stuff like finding Britain's "fattest town", though? I don't recall an obesity question in the Census.
    They couldn't put too much weight on the responses.
    Perhaps the study was by the Mass Observation Group?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,561
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    "One furious local told MailOnline: '[Luton] is full of obese people. It's the council's fault."

    Daily Mail

    I had the misfortune to read that article. Apparently the council has allowed too many take-away chicken shops, and has presumably then forced Lutonites to enter them and buy chicken and chips.
    How on earth do statisticians (?) calculate stuff like finding Britain's "fattest town", though? I don't recall an obesity question in the Census.
    They couldn't put too much weight on the responses.
    Perhaps the study was by the Mass Observation Group?
    I don't think we're paying due care to the gravity of the situation.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,123
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    "One furious local told MailOnline: '[Luton] is full of obese people. It's the council's fault."

    Daily Mail

    I had the misfortune to read that article. Apparently the council has allowed too many take-away chicken shops, and has presumably then forced Lutonites to enter them and buy chicken and chips.
    How on earth do statisticians (?) calculate stuff like finding Britain's "fattest town", though? I don't recall an obesity question in the Census.
    They couldn't put too much weight on the responses.
    Perhaps the study was by the Mass Observation Group?
    I don't think we're paying due care to the gravity of the situation.
    Also, it doesn't seem to equate to light thrown on the question.
  • Options
    ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 2,993
    Apologies if this has been done - only just catching up with the news.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-68188114

    Mould and damp in home left young children in hospital

    Katrina Lapton, 49, said her two granddaughters were treated for chest infections because of mould and damp in her home.

    A neighbour also said black mould had grown in her and her baby's bedroom due to leaks in her ceiling.

    The United Welsh housing association said it was sorry residents were currently unhappy.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,071

    RWP said:

    RWP said:

    Will there be a thread on the odds for next Welsh FM? If Gething wins, all 6 of the top political roles in the UK and Ireland will be no longer held by white men (along with Sunak, Yusuf, Varadkar, O'Neill and Pengelly). In 2014 all 6 roles were held by white men (Cameron, Salmond, Jones, Robinson, McGuinness and Kenny).

    I did a thread on that in December

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/12/19/replacing-the-irreplaceable/
    any chance of an update please? There are only two candidates but I'm not aware of any polling of the selectorate.
    I shall aim to write one next week.
    Despite their minority backgrounds. Jeremy is gay and Vaughan has a non-white ethnicity they do share a commonality, which they also share with Drakeford. They are all f*****'
    useless.
    I sense people are getting increasingly fed up. Labour only on 38% for a Senedd election when they are polling well above that UK wide.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,163
    If you get the chance to see it, Concrete Utopia is a really good film.
  • Options
    Well, the Tories are going to bash the bishops and go for disestablishment.

    Suella Braverman and Dame Priti Patel have hit out at Britain’s churches over their alleged support for “bogus” asylum claims.

    Writing for The Telegraph, Mrs Braverman said that during her time as home secretary she “became aware of churches around the country facilitating industrial-scale bogus asylum claims”.

    Separately, Dame Priti, also a former home secretary, accused church leaders of “political activism” in their approach to asylum seekers, claiming that religious institutions supported cases “without merit”.

    The clergy’s role in offering conversions to asylum seekers and support for their applications is likely to be considered by ministers in the wake of the chemical attack in London that injured a mother, two children and 10 others.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/02/03/church-aiding-asylum-claims-mass-scale-ex-ministers/
  • Options
    sarissasarissa Posts: 1,804
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Okay got it.

    The Tories are as doomed as the Bulgarians/Samuel II at the Battle of Kleidion.

    Would 'the Scots at Flodden' be too controversial?
    Or the English at Prestonpans?
    No - at Prestonpans the English army ran away too fast to be caught and massacred.
  • Options
    sarissasarissa Posts: 1,804
    Leon said:

    It would be effing hilarious if Scotland contrive to lose this after having a 27 point lead

    I don’t think they will but a man can dream

    Forgotten 2019 already?
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,071
    edited February 3
    When I posted about the BBC's Dawn Queva yesterday and drew attention to her questionable views on whites and Jews some of the reaction was that it was the latest cancellation outrage blah blah blah. I accept it was merely an anecdote.

    However Andrew Neil posted about it earlier today and claims the response he's had from previous colleagues at the BBC is that it is 'grim' and frightening to be a Jew at the BBC right now. At the very least that ought to be raising eyebrows.

    https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1753842200310407474
  • Options
    Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 2,779

    Well, the Tories are going to bash the bishops and go for disestablishment.

    Suella Braverman and Dame Priti Patel have hit out at Britain’s churches over their alleged support for “bogus” asylum claims.

    Writing for The Telegraph, Mrs Braverman said that during her time as home secretary she “became aware of churches around the country facilitating industrial-scale bogus asylum claims”.

    Separately, Dame Priti, also a former home secretary, accused church leaders of “political activism” in their approach to asylum seekers, claiming that religious institutions supported cases “without merit”.

    The clergy’s role in offering conversions to asylum seekers and support for their applications is likely to be considered by ministers in the wake of the chemical attack in London that injured a mother, two children and 10 others.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/02/03/church-aiding-asylum-claims-mass-scale-ex-ministers/

    This is the point when people who haven't been to church for ten generations suddenly wake up and realise their Christian heritage is at risk.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,123

    Well, the Tories are going to bash the bishops and go for disestablishment.

    Suella Braverman and Dame Priti Patel have hit out at Britain’s churches over their alleged support for “bogus” asylum claims.

    Writing for The Telegraph, Mrs Braverman said that during her time as home secretary she “became aware of churches around the country facilitating industrial-scale bogus asylum claims”.

    Separately, Dame Priti, also a former home secretary, accused church leaders of “political activism” in their approach to asylum seekers, claiming that religious institutions supported cases “without merit”.

    The clergy’s role in offering conversions to asylum seekers and support for their applications is likely to be considered by ministers in the wake of the chemical attack in London that injured a mother, two children and 10 others.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/02/03/church-aiding-asylum-claims-mass-scale-ex-ministers/

    This is the point when people who haven't been to church for ten generations suddenly wake up and realise their Christian heritage is at risk.
    Do we know if the C of E is implicated in the asylum seeker case and others? Or will it be sort of excused because reasons?
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 6,042

    Well, the Tories are going to bash the bishops and go for disestablishment.

    Suella Braverman and Dame Priti Patel have hit out at Britain’s churches over their alleged support for “bogus” asylum claims.

    Writing for The Telegraph, Mrs Braverman said that during her time as home secretary she “became aware of churches around the country facilitating industrial-scale bogus asylum claims”.

    Separately, Dame Priti, also a former home secretary, accused church leaders of “political activism” in their approach to asylum seekers, claiming that religious institutions supported cases “without merit”.

    The clergy’s role in offering conversions to asylum seekers and support for their applications is likely to be considered by ministers in the wake of the chemical attack in London that injured a mother, two children and 10 others.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/02/03/church-aiding-asylum-claims-mass-scale-ex-ministers/

    This is the point when people who haven't been to church for ten generations suddenly wake up and realise their Christian heritage is at risk.
    This could be the weirdest wedge issue yet.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,926
    Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention figures
    The latest YouGov/Times voting intention poll shows the Conservatives on 23% (+3 from our last poll on 23-24 January) and Labour 44% (-3).

    Elsewhere, the Liberal Democrats have 9% of the vote (+1), Greens 6% (no change), and Reform UK (12%).

    YG 30-31 Jan
  • Options
    Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 2,779
    Carnyx said:

    Well, the Tories are going to bash the bishops and go for disestablishment.

    Suella Braverman and Dame Priti Patel have hit out at Britain’s churches over their alleged support for “bogus” asylum claims.

    Writing for The Telegraph, Mrs Braverman said that during her time as home secretary she “became aware of churches around the country facilitating industrial-scale bogus asylum claims”.

    Separately, Dame Priti, also a former home secretary, accused church leaders of “political activism” in their approach to asylum seekers, claiming that religious institutions supported cases “without merit”.

    The clergy’s role in offering conversions to asylum seekers and support for their applications is likely to be considered by ministers in the wake of the chemical attack in London that injured a mother, two children and 10 others.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/02/03/church-aiding-asylum-claims-mass-scale-ex-ministers/

    This is the point when people who haven't been to church for ten generations suddenly wake up and realise their Christian heritage is at risk.
    Do we know if the C of E is implicated in the asylum seeker case and others? Or will it be sort of excused because reasons?
    There'll be so much mud flung in so many directions no-one will know the answer. But it's not looking too clever for Samaritans, good, bad or indifferent.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,596
    Wellingorough:


    Sam Freedman
    @Samfr
    ·
    1h
    Could be one of the biggest ever Con to Lab swings seen in a by-election given both the polls and the ludicrous candidate choice. Record is 29.2% in Dudley West (1994).
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,123

    Carnyx said:

    Well, the Tories are going to bash the bishops and go for disestablishment.

    Suella Braverman and Dame Priti Patel have hit out at Britain’s churches over their alleged support for “bogus” asylum claims.

    Writing for The Telegraph, Mrs Braverman said that during her time as home secretary she “became aware of churches around the country facilitating industrial-scale bogus asylum claims”.

    Separately, Dame Priti, also a former home secretary, accused church leaders of “political activism” in their approach to asylum seekers, claiming that religious institutions supported cases “without merit”.

    The clergy’s role in offering conversions to asylum seekers and support for their applications is likely to be considered by ministers in the wake of the chemical attack in London that injured a mother, two children and 10 others.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/02/03/church-aiding-asylum-claims-mass-scale-ex-ministers/

    This is the point when people who haven't been to church for ten generations suddenly wake up and realise their Christian heritage is at risk.
    Do we know if the C of E is implicated in the asylum seeker case and others? Or will it be sort of excused because reasons?
    There'll be so much mud flung in so many directions no-one will know the answer. But it's not looking too clever for Samaritans, good, bad or indifferent.
    Hmm. Do you mean the anti-suicide people (and am I missing something)? Or just those people who don't pass by on the other side?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,163
    We are not quite at this stage in the UK.

    The US is in a dark place.
    https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1753829387181392127
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,175

    Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention figures
    The latest YouGov/Times voting intention poll shows the Conservatives on 23% (+3 from our last poll on 23-24 January) and Labour 44% (-3).

    Elsewhere, the Liberal Democrats have 9% of the vote (+1), Greens 6% (no change), and Reform UK (12%).

    YG 30-31 Jan

    Reform greater than LD again
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,232

    Well, the Tories are going to bash the bishops and go for disestablishment.

    Suella Braverman and Dame Priti Patel have hit out at Britain’s churches over their alleged support for “bogus” asylum claims.

    Writing for The Telegraph, Mrs Braverman said that during her time as home secretary she “became aware of churches around the country facilitating industrial-scale bogus asylum claims”.

    Separately, Dame Priti, also a former home secretary, accused church leaders of “political activism” in their approach to asylum seekers, claiming that religious institutions supported cases “without merit”.

    The clergy’s role in offering conversions to asylum seekers and support for their applications is likely to be considered by ministers in the wake of the chemical attack in London that injured a mother, two children and 10 others.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/02/03/church-aiding-asylum-claims-mass-scale-ex-ministers/

    No they aren't. By definition you can't be a Tory and support disestablishment, the Tory Party being created centuries ago to support the monarchy, the landed interest and the Church of England as established church. I recognise a liberal, non Tory like you however wouldn't understand that.

    It is part of churches job to convert to Christ regardless of denomination.

    It is the job of the Home Office and government to deport those judged a security risk like Ezedi. He couldn't be deported despite convictions for sexual offences as it needs a prison sentence of over a year under current UK law to deport
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,232

    Well, the Tories are going to bash the bishops and go for disestablishment.

    Suella Braverman and Dame Priti Patel have hit out at Britain’s churches over their alleged support for “bogus” asylum claims.

    Writing for The Telegraph, Mrs Braverman said that during her time as home secretary she “became aware of churches around the country facilitating industrial-scale bogus asylum claims”.

    Separately, Dame Priti, also a former home secretary, accused church leaders of “political activism” in their approach to asylum seekers, claiming that religious institutions supported cases “without merit”.

    The clergy’s role in offering conversions to asylum seekers and support for their applications is likely to be considered by ministers in the wake of the chemical attack in London that injured a mother, two children and 10 others.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/02/03/church-aiding-asylum-claims-mass-scale-ex-ministers/

    This is the point when people who haven't been to church for ten generations suddenly wake up and realise their Christian heritage is at risk.
    If more white right wingers went to church they wouldn't need so many immigrant converts.

    Indeed there are more black British percentage wise in UK churches now than white British
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,623

    Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention figures
    The latest YouGov/Times voting intention poll shows the Conservatives on 23% (+3 from our last poll on 23-24 January) and Labour 44% (-3).

    Elsewhere, the Liberal Democrats have 9% of the vote (+1), Greens 6% (no change), and Reform UK (12%).

    YG 30-31 Jan

    Broken, sleazy Labour on the slide!
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,232
    'Bankers are up in arms about attempts to cut their salaries in favour of bigger bonuses, amid fears private school fees will become unaffordable without a guaranteed high income.'
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/02/03/bankers-rebel-against-return-of-big-bonuses/
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,623
    HYUFD said:

    'Bankers are up in arms about attempts to cut their salaries in favour of bigger bonuses, amid fears private school fees will become unaffordable without a guaranteed high income.'
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/02/03/bankers-rebel-against-return-of-big-bonuses/

    Typo in "Bankers"?
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,596
    Relevant to the discussion on here the other day:



    Sam Freedman
    @Samfr
    ·
    9h
    Quite a stat in the FT - there has been a 60% jump in prescriptions for ADHD drugs since *June 2020*.

    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1753760941735358519
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,596
    HYUFD said:

    Well, the Tories are going to bash the bishops and go for disestablishment.

    Suella Braverman and Dame Priti Patel have hit out at Britain’s churches over their alleged support for “bogus” asylum claims.

    Writing for The Telegraph, Mrs Braverman said that during her time as home secretary she “became aware of churches around the country facilitating industrial-scale bogus asylum claims”.

    Separately, Dame Priti, also a former home secretary, accused church leaders of “political activism” in their approach to asylum seekers, claiming that religious institutions supported cases “without merit”.

    The clergy’s role in offering conversions to asylum seekers and support for their applications is likely to be considered by ministers in the wake of the chemical attack in London that injured a mother, two children and 10 others.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/02/03/church-aiding-asylum-claims-mass-scale-ex-ministers/

    No they aren't. By definition you can't be a Tory and support disestablishment, the Tory Party being created centuries ago to support the monarchy, the landed interest and the Church of England as established church. I recognise a liberal, non Tory like you however wouldn't understand that.

    It is part of churches job to convert to Christ regardless of denomination.

    It is the job of the Home Office and government to deport those judged a security risk like Ezedi. He couldn't be deported despite convictions for sexual offences as it needs a prison sentence of over a year under current UK law to deport
    You think Braverman and Patel and all the rest of them are actually Tories as you describe them?

    Blimey. Incredible.



  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,232
    edited February 3

    HYUFD said:

    Well, the Tories are going to bash the bishops and go for disestablishment.

    Suella Braverman and Dame Priti Patel have hit out at Britain’s churches over their alleged support for “bogus” asylum claims.

    Writing for The Telegraph, Mrs Braverman said that during her time as home secretary she “became aware of churches around the country facilitating industrial-scale bogus asylum claims”.

    Separately, Dame Priti, also a former home secretary, accused church leaders of “political activism” in their approach to asylum seekers, claiming that religious institutions supported cases “without merit”.

    The clergy’s role in offering conversions to asylum seekers and support for their applications is likely to be considered by ministers in the wake of the chemical attack in London that injured a mother, two children and 10 others.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/02/03/church-aiding-asylum-claims-mass-scale-ex-ministers/

    No they aren't. By definition you can't be a Tory and support disestablishment, the Tory Party being created centuries ago to support the monarchy, the landed interest and the Church of England as established church. I recognise a liberal, non Tory like you however wouldn't understand that.

    It is part of churches job to convert to Christ regardless of denomination.

    It is the job of the Home Office and government to deport those judged a security risk like Ezedi. He couldn't be deported despite convictions for sexual offences as it needs a prison sentence of over a year under current UK law to deport
    You think Braverman and Patel and all the rest of them are actually Tories as you describe them?

    Blimey. Incredible.



    No, not really. Sunak, Hunt and Cameron are Tories.

    Braverman and Patel are really right wing nationalist conservatives more than Tories, closer to Farage and Reform than the One Nation wing of their party but today's Conservative Party is a broad church of which Tories are just one part
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,480

    RWP said:

    RWP said:

    Will there be a thread on the odds for next Welsh FM? If Gething wins, all 6 of the top political roles in the UK and Ireland will be no longer held by white men (along with Sunak, Yusuf, Varadkar, O'Neill and Pengelly). In 2014 all 6 roles were held by white men (Cameron, Salmond, Jones, Robinson, McGuinness and Kenny).

    I did a thread on that in December

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/12/19/replacing-the-irreplaceable/
    any chance of an update please? There are only two candidates but I'm not aware of any polling of the selectorate.
    I shall aim to write one next week.
    Despite their minority backgrounds. Jeremy is gay and Vaughan has a non-white ethnicity they do share a commonality, which they also share with Drakeford. They are all f*****'
    useless.
    I sense people are getting increasingly fed up. Labour only on 38% for a Senedd election when they are polling well above that UK wide.
    Were you a Conservative in Wales your problem would be the Conservatives led by Andrew RT Davies are demonstrably more incompetent that the Labour administration.

    Until the Uxbridge by election Andrew RT Davies was four square behind the 20mph policy.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,676
    edited February 3
    HYUFD said:

    Well, the Tories are going to bash the bishops and go for disestablishment.

    Suella Braverman and Dame Priti Patel have hit out at Britain’s churches over their alleged support for “bogus” asylum claims.

    Writing for The Telegraph, Mrs Braverman said that during her time as home secretary she “became aware of churches around the country facilitating industrial-scale bogus asylum claims”.

    Separately, Dame Priti, also a former home secretary, accused church leaders of “political activism” in their approach to asylum seekers, claiming that religious institutions supported cases “without merit”.

    The clergy’s role in offering conversions to asylum seekers and support for their applications is likely to be considered by ministers in the wake of the chemical attack in London that injured a mother, two children and 10 others.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/02/03/church-aiding-asylum-claims-mass-scale-ex-ministers/

    No they aren't. By definition you can't be a Tory and support disestablishment, the Tory Party being created centuries ago to support the monarchy, the landed interest and the Church of England as established church. I recognise a liberal, non Tory like you however wouldn't understand that.

    It is part of churches job to convert to Christ regardless of denomination.

    It is the job of the Home Office and government to deport those judged a security risk like Ezedi. He couldn't be deported despite convictions for sexual offences as it needs a prison sentence of over a year under current UK law to deport
    Here's the thing, though.

    That Conservative Party- the one that took the church seriously- is dead. What has replaced it is a party that just gets angry with any dissent and seeks to sweep it away. See the recent fury that bishops in the Lords keep voting against the government.

    The church and any party aren't going to agree all the time. One of the elegant things about Christianity is that it should disturb everyone- lefties and righties alike. The church always has a duty to always push for more kindness, and the state always has a duty to push back muttering about the real world.

    But if it weren't for the probability that opposition beckons, I can imagine this iteration of the Conservatives cutting the church loose, out of spite as much as anything else.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,480

    Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention figures
    The latest YouGov/Times voting intention poll shows the Conservatives on 23% (+3 from our last poll on 23-24 January) and Labour 44% (-3).

    Elsewhere, the Liberal Democrats have 9% of the vote (+1), Greens 6% (no change), and Reform UK (12%).

    YG 30-31 Jan

    When you take comfort from Starmer- Labour a mere 21% ahead of the Conservatives, after what looked to be an outlier, you must be easily pleased.

    Don't worry BJO it is at least heading in your direction and the client media have been giving Labour and Starmer in particular a relentless spanking since the New Year. Con majority not out of the question yet. Good luck!
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,232

    HYUFD said:

    Well, the Tories are going to bash the bishops and go for disestablishment.

    Suella Braverman and Dame Priti Patel have hit out at Britain’s churches over their alleged support for “bogus” asylum claims.

    Writing for The Telegraph, Mrs Braverman said that during her time as home secretary she “became aware of churches around the country facilitating industrial-scale bogus asylum claims”.

    Separately, Dame Priti, also a former home secretary, accused church leaders of “political activism” in their approach to asylum seekers, claiming that religious institutions supported cases “without merit”.

    The clergy’s role in offering conversions to asylum seekers and support for their applications is likely to be considered by ministers in the wake of the chemical attack in London that injured a mother, two children and 10 others.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/02/03/church-aiding-asylum-claims-mass-scale-ex-ministers/

    No they aren't. By definition you can't be a Tory and support disestablishment, the Tory Party being created centuries ago to support the monarchy, the landed interest and the Church of England as established church. I recognise a liberal, non Tory like you however wouldn't understand that.

    It is part of churches job to convert to Christ regardless of denomination.

    It is the job of the Home Office and government to deport those judged a security risk like Ezedi. He couldn't be deported despite convictions for sexual offences as it needs a prison sentence of over a year under current UK law to deport
    Here's the thing, though.

    That Conservative Party- the one that took the church seriously- is dead. What has replaced it is a party that just gets angry with any dissent and seeks to sweep it away. See the recent fury that bishops in the Lords keep voting against the government.

    The church and any party aren't going to agree all the time. One of the elegant things about Christianity is that it should disturb everyone- lefties and righties alike. The church always has a duty to always push for more kindness, and the state always has a duty to push back muttering about the real world.

    But if it weren't for the probability that opposition beckons, I can imagine this iteration of the Conservatives cutting the church loose, out of spite as much as anything else.
    It won't, most Conservative MPs and the government still support an established church, as it seems does Starmer (albeit he may move to an elected Lords).

    Most of those in favour of disestablishment are on the left still. Yougov last year had 42% of 2019 Labour voters wanting to disestablish the Church of England and only 32% to keep it established.

    57% of 2019 Conservative voters though wanted the C of E to stay the established church as did 2019 LDs narrowly by 40% to 39%
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/ocie8ox4cd/TheTimes_ChurchOfEngland_230130_W.pdf
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,596

    Jack Poso 🇺🇸
    @JackPosobiec
    Tucker Carlson just arrived in Moscow
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,584
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Well, the Tories are going to bash the bishops and go for disestablishment.

    Suella Braverman and Dame Priti Patel have hit out at Britain’s churches over their alleged support for “bogus” asylum claims.

    Writing for The Telegraph, Mrs Braverman said that during her time as home secretary she “became aware of churches around the country facilitating industrial-scale bogus asylum claims”.

    Separately, Dame Priti, also a former home secretary, accused church leaders of “political activism” in their approach to asylum seekers, claiming that religious institutions supported cases “without merit”.

    The clergy’s role in offering conversions to asylum seekers and support for their applications is likely to be considered by ministers in the wake of the chemical attack in London that injured a mother, two children and 10 others.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/02/03/church-aiding-asylum-claims-mass-scale-ex-ministers/

    No they aren't. By definition you can't be a Tory and support disestablishment, the Tory Party being created centuries ago to support the monarchy, the landed interest and the Church of England as established church. I recognise a liberal, non Tory like you however wouldn't understand that.

    It is part of churches job to convert to Christ regardless of denomination.

    It is the job of the Home Office and government to deport those judged a security risk like Ezedi. He couldn't be deported despite convictions for sexual offences as it needs a prison sentence of over a year under current UK law to deport
    You think Braverman and Patel and all the rest of them are actually Tories as you describe them?

    Blimey. Incredible.



    No, not really. Sunak, Hunt and Cameron are Tories.

    Braverman and Patel are really right wing nationalist conservatives more than Tories, closer to Farage and Reform than the One Nation wing of their party but today's Conservative Party is a broad church of which Tories are just one part
    About as empty as a church, as well.
  • Options
    MJWMJW Posts: 1,400

    When I posted about the BBC's Dawn Queva yesterday and drew attention to her questionable views on whites and Jews some of the reaction was that it was the latest cancellation outrage blah blah blah. I accept it was merely an anecdote.

    However Andrew Neil posted about it earlier today and claims the response he's had from previous colleagues at the BBC is that it is 'grim' and frightening to be a Jew at the BBC right now. At the very least that ought to be raising eyebrows.

    https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1753842200310407474

    You were right to raise it. It is utterly appalling. There is a real serious problem in terms of antisemitism - even of the kind that's pretty indistinguishable from Nazism - being seen as acceptable in certain circles and in certain causes' name. The fact that some dismissed it (as some so often did with the appalling stuff in the Corbyn years) shows the problem.

    There are a limited number of people on the far left with absolutely abhorrent, crackers views - enough to be worrying but not a majority. But a far larger number, including prominent figures and institutions, that greet said views with a shrug or even excuse and defend it until it becomes absolutely impossible to, because it's awkward to their politics to admit that a significant number on their 'side' are motivated by an age-old hatred and antisemitic conspiracy theories. Rather than justice and concern for Palestinians.
This discussion has been closed.