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.
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.
I think there's a lot more antisemitism about that is being tacitly accepted than many of us realised. A few spectacular idiots are very bold about it, but they are so bold because the feel comfortable in their own circles, circles apparently large enough that it is not a problem for them generally. If I were jewish I'd be increasingly concerned in this country.
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.
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.
Depends which church, some are still packed, especially the conservative evangelical ones and many of our greatest cathedrals
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.
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
Times they are a-changing wrt the Tory party and the CoE.
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.
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
Times they are a-changing wrt the Tory party and the CoE.
If they are wanting to lose that as part of their base (or have lost it), they need to replace it with something else.
It's also worth noting that there are already parties in the world, even in democratic states, whose names bear no relation to what they stand for, so centuries hold definitions of Toryism will not be determiniative now, even if people think it should to make sense.
MP with a finger on the pulse of what really matters to voters.
"Dead people should be able to change their gender, says Labour MP Nichols sparks criticism by calling for official records to be altered posthumously"
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.
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.
But only 41% of all voters actually want the C of E to remain established. We have to count the don't knows on the No side, following your invariable practice with anything to do with indyref. And bear in mind it's only the C of E which gets represented in the HoL.
...today's Conservative Party is a Broad Church...
The main character gets murdered in each series, the later seasons are nowhere near as good as the original, the American remake is insane, and people are turning off in droves
It's such a shame it's jumped the shark and is now just a blatant advert for "Rishi's next gig".
When he moves to the board of OpenAI/Meta/Musks-batshit-thing - it's all too obvious. I'm not sure Kemi will manage to carry season 318 (great actress to all sides that she is) with that "Boris Johnson" standing in for the original Boris either.
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.
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
Times they are a-changing wrt the Tory party and the CoE.
I misread this a reference to voter-ID as 'Times they are e-changing'.
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.
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.
But only 41% of all voters actually want the C of E to remain established. We have to count the don't knows on the No side, following your invariable practice with anything to do with indyref. And bear in mind it's only the C of E which gets represented in the HoL.
41%, so far more than currently back the Tories then (or indeed the SNP).
DKs invariably back the status quo as 2014 proved, just 29% back disestablishment.
46% of the UK are Christian. 13% are even confirmed members of the C of E, less than 5% of the fully appointed, unelected Lords are C of E bishops.
Only establishment guarantees every parishioner a C of E wedding or funeral as of right too
Brianna Ghey was in part targeted because of being trans. There is no point denying this given that this is the evidence which has come out at trial and which has been mentioned in the judge's summing up. We can only deal with the vulnerability of children and those who hate them for particular characteristics if we are honest about the reasons why awful crimes happen.
Being trans made Brianna vulnerable. I do think there are serious questions to be asked about the safeguarding here of a vulnerable child. Those questions need addressing to the school. Those safeguarding questions also need to be asked in relation to the two murderers. The role of porn and violent videos also arises.
No it wasn't. It was the prejudice that people like you have been peddling week in and week out against unfortunate vulnerable people like Briana. She seems to me to have been considerably more balanced than those who have seen them as freaks and opportunists and encouraged others to see them the same
Yes, of course, this awful murder is @cyclefree’s fault for giving her measured opinions on this issue. Do you actually wake up in the morning and think “how can I be even more preposterous today”?
Somehow, you manage it
On the safeguarding - it appears that one of the teens was moved from another school after a nasty attack on another child.
In the new school, they weren’t told about this. Just that she had “issues”.
So they put her in group of those, like Briana, who were vulnerable.
Everyone followed The Process. They put a shark in the fish tank.
One of the grave weaknesses of our education system is we have no proper system for dealing with children who have been expelled for behaviour like this. This means it's far too difficult to get rid of them and when you do they're normally shunted somewhere else without proper processes and therefore cause more problems.
It's partly due to cutbacks but mostly due to stupidity, viz. the idea that somehow every child should be in a mainstream school and kept there come hell or high water no matter what is going on.
Not good for the troublemakers and not good for those around them.
I wholeheartedly agree.
A return to the days of "special schools" for anyone who is different isn't needed, I do think its a good thing that those who are different and have special education needs or disabilities are, wherever possible, in mainstream schools.
But awful behaviour is not a special need, its awful behaviour. Schools should be free to expel anyone who won't follow behaviour policy and is disruptive to the safety, wellbeing or simply the education of others.
Your suggestions would lead to a huge number of expulsions. What would happen to all the expelled kids, though? Where would they go?
It would only lead to expulsions for those who are a threat or danger to others, or are disrupting the education of others. They should be expelled.
That's like saying we shouldn't arrest criminals because it would lead to a large number of arrests.
Where should they go? Have a more secure education system for them where they can be educated without causing harm to others.
1, "Disrupting the education of others" is a huge catch-all that would lead to mass expulsions. 2. Your analogy with criminals isn't relevant, as we don't imprison kids. 3. As others have mentioned, pupil referral units (PRUs) are struggling to cope with the limited business they currently have, without having to pick up thousands more expulsions. 4. Is it really that good an idea to put all the badly-behaved kids in the same place(s) rather than spreading them out?
It is a bloody stupid idea to spread them through the education system so they disrupt *everyone's* education. Or, where there is no proper system to restrain them on the many occasions they become violent.
That is not controversial.
It is also an idea of the DfE, who are chiefly known for drinking and arithmetical errors. Which doesn't inspire confidence anyway.
We might ask ourselves other questions, perhaps. Why are there so many of them? Why is it schools always have to pick up the mess for failings that are nothing to do with them? What should we be doing to properly sort this out?
To be provocative: I'm sure you know that there aren't actually that many highly-disruptive, or violent, kids, and quite often excellent teaching and whole-school behaviour management reduces such behaviour to a minor irritation. It's really no coincidence that the best-led schools, with great teachers, don't have too many issues with behaviour - even in 'deprived' areas. Whereas poor leadership and poor teaching maximises poor behaviour.
Not to be provocative, merely factual - you are wrong.
Where there are excellent whole school behaviour policies and strong leadership they have waiting lists. So they can be choosy about who they take, and when disruptive children do slip through the cracks they are very quickly 'manage moved' elsewhere (which seems to be what happened in this case, incidentally). What does tend to happen though is that as a result behaviour in schools around them gets much worse as they pick up the ones that are rejected and find they can't move them on themselves. I have seen that in both Gloucestershire and Staffordshire. In Gloucester, indeed, for many years one of the best schools in terms of educational practice was Oxstalls, but because St Peter's, Chosen Hill and the grammars quickly booted any troublemakers to them the behaviour was terrible, and so were the educational outcomes.
I think your background is in FE and admin. An altogether different ballgame. You would, I think and hope, be shocked at the tricks schools get up to to fool inspection teams and parents.
Don't agree with all that, particularly the bit that I'd be 'shocked' at the tricks schools get up to - though that's not universal. And I've taught in schools as well as FE - don't know where the admin comes from.
Nevertheless, I don't want to argue with you. So - could England still turn it around against India?
No. They can't. India by 250 runs would be my guess.
I apologise for the mistake over your background being in FE. It was based on something you once said, which I clearly misunderstood. The admin - well, you are associated in some capacity with the DfE and OFSTED.
I've spent nineteen years in three comps, including two inner city comps, two universities, one grammar school and two private schools trying to get the system to work. What I've seen has inspired a mixture of disillusionment, disgust and red rage that means Susan Acland-Hood, Amanda Spielman, Nick Gibb, Christopher Wormald, Dominic Cummings, Ed Balls and Sam Freedman would not be safe if they ever happened to meet me. So you're probably wise not to want to quarrel.
I've come to the conclusion in the words of one Bob the Builder inspired meme, 'can we fix it? No, it's fucked.'
The reasons are complex, but chronic central mismanagement is certainly one. Lack of understanding on behavioural issues is a part of that, although to be fair it's a symptom as much as a cause.
Nineteen years? That's nothing - my sentence was 35 years.
As a kid that attended a school with disruptive pupils who seemed to have a mission of they didn't want to learn therefore no one else should be allowed too....your attitude failed us
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.
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.
But only 41% of all voters actually want the C of E to remain established. We have to count the don't knows on the No side, following your invariable practice with anything to do with indyref. And bear in mind it's only the C of E which gets represented in the HoL.
41%, so far more than currently back the Tories then (or indeed the SNP).
DKs invariably back the status quo as 2014 proved, just 29% back disestablishment.
46% of the UK are Christian. 13% are even confirmed members of the C of E, less than 5% of the fully appointed, unelected Lords are C of E bishops.
Only establishment guarantees every parishioner a C of E wedding or funeral as of right too
Not true about DKs. They are shifting away from establishment. Look at previous polling on keeping the C of E as the "national" (sic) sect.
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.
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.
But only 41% of all voters actually want the C of E to remain established. We have to count the don't knows on the No side, following your invariable practice with anything to do with indyref. And bear in mind it's only the C of E which gets represented in the HoL.
41%, so far more than currently back the Tories then (or indeed the SNP).
DKs invariably back the status quo as 2014 proved, just 29% back disestablishment.
46% of the UK are Christian. 13% are even confirmed members of the C of E, less than 5% of the fully appointed, unelected Lords are C of E bishops.
Only establishment guarantees every parishioner a C of E wedding or funeral as of right too
If Sunak attempts to disestablish the CofE based on dodgy asylum conversions, where will you stand?
(I will be at the back with a giant box of popcorn)
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.
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.
But only 41% of all voters actually want the C of E to remain established. We have to count the don't knows on the No side, following your invariable practice with anything to do with indyref. And bear in mind it's only the C of E which gets represented in the HoL.
41%, so far more than currently back the Tories then (or indeed the SNP).
DKs invariably back the status quo as 2014 proved, just 29% back disestablishment.
46% of the UK are Christian. 13% are even confirmed members of the C of E, less than 5% of the fully appointed, unelected Lords are C of E bishops.
Only establishment guarantees every parishioner a C of E wedding or funeral as of right too
If Sunak attempts to disestablish the CofE based on dodgy asylum conversions, where will you stand?
(I will be at the back with a giant box of popcorn)
He won't 'In his Easter message, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has said the Christian values of “tolerance, compassion and charity” are embedded in British culture.
Mr Sunak, who is Hindu, used the opportunity to reflect on the contribution of Christian communities across the country, calling them an important part of the “national fabric”.
Christian values include converting to Christianity those who wish to do so, it is the government's fault if it fails to deport those who threaten national security.
Though of course if he did he would cease to be a Tory and would have to be deposed
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.
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.
But only 41% of all voters actually want the C of E to remain established. We have to count the don't knows on the No side, following your invariable practice with anything to do with indyref. And bear in mind it's only the C of E which gets represented in the HoL.
41%, so far more than currently back the Tories then (or indeed the SNP).
DKs invariably back the status quo as 2014 proved, just 29% back disestablishment.
46% of the UK are Christian. 13% are even confirmed members of the C of E, less than 5% of the fully appointed, unelected Lords are C of E bishops.
Only establishment guarantees every parishioner a C of E wedding or funeral as of right too
Not true about DKs. They are shifting away from establishment. Look at previous polling on keeping the C of E as the "national" (sic) sect.
Far from it, in 2013 51% backed disestablishment on this poll so there has been clear movement back to establishment
Oh dear. So much for chat this week about Britain's @RoyalNavy aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth potentially being diverted for operations in the Red Sea to ease the burden on the US...
Oh dear. So much for chat this week about Britain's @RoyalNavy aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth potentially being diverted for operations in the Red Sea to ease the burden on the US...
Jack Poso 🇺🇸 @JackPosobiec Tucker Carlson just arrived in Moscow
What I find hard to understand is how people like Tucker Carlson get away with it. He's on the record as being a complete fraud. Has he been forgiven or just forgotten.
Great speech by Fania Oz-Salzberger (daughter of Amos Oz)
https://twitter.com/faniaoz/status/1753906734681219456 ...Herzl and Ben-Gurion got us legitimacy and international recognition - the messianics intend to destroy them. Ben-Gurion and the founding fathers and mothers gave us the Declaration of Independence - the messianics have long been trampling it. They actually wish turn the entire human race against us, including our very best friends. The eternal nation, they chant, not afraid of a long road. But these days they are rushing headlong in the vile hope of conquering and emptying Gaza and settling in it. Yes, even over the dead bodies of the hostages, over the dead bodies of the victims, over the dead bodies of the soldiers who fell and will fall in this battle...
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.
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.
But only 41% of all voters actually want the C of E to remain established. We have to count the don't knows on the No side, following your invariable practice with anything to do with indyref. And bear in mind it's only the C of E which gets represented in the HoL.
41%, so far more than currently back the Tories then (or indeed the SNP).
DKs invariably back the status quo as 2014 proved, just 29% back disestablishment.
46% of the UK are Christian. 13% are even confirmed members of the C of E, less than 5% of the fully appointed, unelected Lords are C of E bishops.
Only establishment guarantees every parishioner a C of E wedding or funeral as of right too
If Sunak attempts to disestablish the CofE based on dodgy asylum conversions, where will you stand?
(I will be at the back with a giant box of popcorn)
He won't 'In his Easter message, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has said the Christian values of “tolerance, compassion and charity” are embedded in British culture.
Mr Sunak, who is Hindu, used the opportunity to reflect on the contribution of Christian communities across the country, calling them an important part of the “national fabric”.
Christian values include converting to Christianity those who wish to do so, it is the government's fault if it fails to deport those who threaten national security.
Though of course if he did he would cease to be a Tory and would have to be deposed
Deposed! The Archbishop of Canterbury deploys a tank division to Richmond, Yorkshire.
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.
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.
But only 41% of all voters actually want the C of E to remain established. We have to count the don't knows on the No side, following your invariable practice with anything to do with indyref. And bear in mind it's only the C of E which gets represented in the HoL.
41%, so far more than currently back the Tories then (or indeed the SNP).
DKs invariably back the status quo as 2014 proved, just 29% back disestablishment.
46% of the UK are Christian. 13% are even confirmed members of the C of E, less than 5% of the fully appointed, unelected Lords are C of E bishops.
Only establishment guarantees every parishioner a C of E wedding or funeral as of right too
If Sunak attempts to disestablish the CofE based on dodgy asylum conversions, where will you stand?
(I will be at the back with a giant box of popcorn)
He won't 'In his Easter message, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has said the Christian values of “tolerance, compassion and charity” are embedded in British culture.
Mr Sunak, who is Hindu, used the opportunity to reflect on the contribution of Christian communities across the country, calling them an important part of the “national fabric”.
Christian values include converting to Christianity those who wish to do so, it is the government's fault if it fails to deport those who threaten national security.
Though of course if he did he would cease to be a Tory and would have to be deposed
Deposed! The Archbishop of Canterbury deploys a tank division to Richmond, Yorkshire.
Theodore of Tarsus v Wilfrid all over again.
No, Tory MPs would have to depose him, no Tory leader can back disestablishment
Oh dear. So much for chat this week about Britain's @RoyalNavy aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth potentially being diverted for operations in the Red Sea to ease the burden on the US...
Mechanical issue prevents HMS Queen Elizabeth from sailing on NATO exercise. Instead, HMS Prince of Wales will be readied to replace her.
This misses the point. Warships break all the time, that's why multiples of the same hull are procured. This is an instance of the system working as designed.
I highly doubt QE was ever going to the Meccan Sea. If it got hit by one Hootie drone then that's the career of every flag rank involved in the decision up in smoke. It's not as if its presence there would force anything that could be marketed as a decisive victory so it's high risk/low reward for our chums in braid.
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.
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.
I think there's a lot more antisemitism about that is being tacitly accepted than many of us realised. A few spectacular idiots are very bold about it, but they are so bold because the feel comfortable in their own circles, circles apparently large enough that it is not a problem for them generally. If I were jewish I'd be increasingly concerned in this country.
Yes. Though it was why some of us were raising the alarm in the Corbyn years - and in the case of some community groups and scholars of the left, long before that. Defending, excusing, or promoting people with horrific views because they happened to be 'allies' on this totemic issue and associated 'anti-imperialist' ravings.
There's long been a problem of a complete inability (or unwillingness if feeling less charitable) to see or call out antisemitism that uses Israel or 'Zionism' as its justification and the basis for its reversion to the age-old conspiracy theories handed on from medieval Europe and the Middle East to the Nazis and then the Soviets, and back again.
I think what has shocked is the sheer lack of empathy and willingness to try and deny 7th October. Plus the behaviour of institutions which have been clueless in the face of hate and conspiracism coming from this direction as their entire framework for dealing with extremism looks the other way towards the right. That and some of the rank stupidity involved - which has been offensive and worrying of and in itself. Some of the most dreadful scenes have been in the US though.
Something went very wrong a while ago, but 7 October exposed it for all to see in the most terrible way possible.
Looks like only better pay for social care workers and abolition of the remaining hereditary peers, in a Labour first term anyway. The Tories should certainly oppose the latter, after all saving 91 was what Cranborne agreed with Blair as a compromise when most of the original hereditaries were removed. Even if a Labour majority government would still get it through.
'Instead, it will focus on a fair pay agreement for care workers as well as issues of recruitment and retention, as part of a wider workers’ rights bill. Its plans for a complete overhaul of social care will, however, be presented as a longer-term mission taking at least 10 years and two parliaments.
Looks like only better pay for social care workers and abolition of the remaining hereditary peers, in a Labour first term anyway. The Tories should certainly oppose the latter, after all saving 91 was what Cranborne agreed with Blair as a compromise when most of the original hereditaries were removed. Even if a Labour majority government would still get it through.
'Instead, it will focus on a fair pay agreement for care workers as well as issues of recruitment and retention, as part of a wider workers’ rights bill. Its plans for a complete overhaul of social care will, however, be presented as a longer-term mission taking at least 10 years and two parliaments.
Labour still likely to build on the greenbelt in a potential clash with NIMBYs.
'The manifesto will also make much of a pledge to build 300,000 homes a year – a target in the last Conservative manifesto that has not been achieved. Starmer’s willingness to take on those who want to prevent any building on “greenfield” sites is used by Labour insiders to show the Labour leader is willing to take on potentially difficult battles, rather than always take a cautious path.' https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/03/labour-ditches-radical-reforms-as-it-prepares-bombproof-election-manifesto
...You're in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down and see a banker, Kinabalu. It's crawling toward you. You reach down and you flip the banker over on its back. The banker lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help, Kinabalu. But you're not helping...
Oh dear. So much for chat this week about Britain's @RoyalNavy aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth potentially being diverted for operations in the Red Sea to ease the burden on the US...
Mechanical issue prevents HMS Queen Elizabeth from sailing on NATO exercise. Instead, HMS Prince of Wales will be readied to replace her.
Living proof that fucking up defence procurement is far from the exclusive province of the Tories.
I believe @DuraAce has a sovereign remedy for defence procurement that involves a baseball bat and a queue of MOD personnel in descending rank order and single file. I think he has a point.
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.
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.
I think there's a lot more antisemitism about that is being tacitly accepted than many of us realised. A few spectacular idiots are very bold about it, but they are so bold because the feel comfortable in their own circles, circles apparently large enough that it is not a problem for them generally. If I were jewish I'd be increasingly concerned in this country.
Yes. Though it was why some of us were raising the alarm in the Corbyn years - and in the case of some community groups and scholars of the left, long before that. Defending, excusing, or promoting people with horrific views because they happened to be 'allies' on this totemic issue and associated 'anti-imperialist' ravings.
There's long been a problem of a complete inability (or unwillingness if feeling less charitable) to see or call out antisemitism that uses Israel or 'Zionism' as its justification and the basis for its reversion to the age-old conspiracy theories handed on from medieval Europe and the Middle East to the Nazis and then the Soviets, and back again.
I think what has shocked is the sheer lack of empathy and willingness to try and deny 7th October. Plus the behaviour of institutions which have been clueless in the face of hate and conspiracism coming from this direction as their entire framework for dealing with extremism looks the other way towards the right. That and some of the rank stupidity involved - which has been offensive and worrying of and in itself. Some of the most dreadful scenes have been in the US though.
Something went very wrong a while ago, but 7 October exposed it for all to see in the most terrible way possible.
I've just seen that the newly elected Head of my Union PCS* chose to speak today at the 'pro Palestine' rally. I shall be resigning my membership with immediate effect. These rallies seem nothing more than Iranian propaganda, Hamas adoration, antisemitic hate plus a large dollop of stupidity.
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.
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.
I think there's a lot more antisemitism about that is being tacitly accepted than many of us realised. A few spectacular idiots are very bold about it, but they are so bold because the feel comfortable in their own circles, circles apparently large enough that it is not a problem for them generally. If I were jewish I'd be increasingly concerned in this country.
Yes. Though it was why some of us were raising the alarm in the Corbyn years - and in the case of some community groups and scholars of the left, long before that. Defending, excusing, or promoting people with horrific views because they happened to be 'allies' on this totemic issue and associated 'anti-imperialist' ravings.
There's long been a problem of a complete inability (or unwillingness if feeling less charitable) to see or call out antisemitism that uses Israel or 'Zionism' as its justification and the basis for its reversion to the age-old conspiracy theories handed on from medieval Europe and the Middle East to the Nazis and then the Soviets, and back again.
I think what has shocked is the sheer lack of empathy and willingness to try and deny 7th October. Plus the behaviour of institutions which have been clueless in the face of hate and conspiracism coming from this direction as their entire framework for dealing with extremism looks the other way towards the right. That and some of the rank stupidity involved - which has been offensive and worrying of and in itself. Some of the most dreadful scenes have been in the US though.
Something went very wrong a while ago, but 7 October exposed it for all to see in the most terrible way possible.
I've just seen that the newly elected Head of my Union PCS* chose to speak today at the 'pro Palestine' rally. I shall be resigning my membership with immediate effect. These rallies seem nothing more than Iranian propaganda, Hamas adoration, antisemitic hate plus a large dollop of stupidity.
*That's the main Union for civil servants.
If I remember my time in the job, Prospect was the union for experts and tech staff. They'll probably take you in if you ask.
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.
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.
I think there's a lot more antisemitism about that is being tacitly accepted than many of us realised. A few spectacular idiots are very bold about it, but they are so bold because the feel comfortable in their own circles, circles apparently large enough that it is not a problem for them generally. If I were jewish I'd be increasingly concerned in this country.
Yes. Though it was why some of us were raising the alarm in the Corbyn years - and in the case of some community groups and scholars of the left, long before that. Defending, excusing, or promoting people with horrific views because they happened to be 'allies' on this totemic issue and associated 'anti-imperialist' ravings.
There's long been a problem of a complete inability (or unwillingness if feeling less charitable) to see or call out antisemitism that uses Israel or 'Zionism' as its justification and the basis for its reversion to the age-old conspiracy theories handed on from medieval Europe and the Middle East to the Nazis and then the Soviets, and back again.
I think what has shocked is the sheer lack of empathy and willingness to try and deny 7th October. Plus the behaviour of institutions which have been clueless in the face of hate and conspiracism coming from this direction as their entire framework for dealing with extremism looks the other way towards the right. That and some of the rank stupidity involved - which has been offensive and worrying of and in itself. Some of the most dreadful scenes have been in the US though.
Something went very wrong a while ago, but 7 October exposed it for all to see in the most terrible way possible.
I've just seen that the newly elected Head of my Union PCS* chose to speak today at the 'pro Palestine' rally. I shall be resigning my membership with immediate effect. These rallies seem nothing more than Iranian propaganda, Hamas adoration, antisemitic hate plus a large dollop of stupidity.
*That's the main Union for civil servants.
If I remember my time in the job, Prospect was the union for experts and tech staff. They'll probably take you in if you ask.
There is another union for more senior staff. Not sure I'd be able to join.
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.
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.
I think there's a lot more antisemitism about that is being tacitly accepted than many of us realised. A few spectacular idiots are very bold about it, but they are so bold because the feel comfortable in their own circles, circles apparently large enough that it is not a problem for them generally. If I were jewish I'd be increasingly concerned in this country.
Yes. Though it was why some of us were raising the alarm in the Corbyn years - and in the case of some community groups and scholars of the left, long before that. Defending, excusing, or promoting people with horrific views because they happened to be 'allies' on this totemic issue and associated 'anti-imperialist' ravings.
There's long been a problem of a complete inability (or unwillingness if feeling less charitable) to see or call out antisemitism that uses Israel or 'Zionism' as its justification and the basis for its reversion to the age-old conspiracy theories handed on from medieval Europe and the Middle East to the Nazis and then the Soviets, and back again.
I think what has shocked is the sheer lack of empathy and willingness to try and deny 7th October. Plus the behaviour of institutions which have been clueless in the face of hate and conspiracism coming from this direction as their entire framework for dealing with extremism looks the other way towards the right. That and some of the rank stupidity involved - which has been offensive and worrying of and in itself. Some of the most dreadful scenes have been in the US though.
Something went very wrong a while ago, but 7 October exposed it for all to see in the most terrible way possible.
I've just seen that the newly elected Head of my Union PCS* chose to speak today at the 'pro Palestine' rally. I shall be resigning my membership with immediate effect. These rallies seem nothing more than Iranian propaganda, Hamas adoration, antisemitic hate plus a large dollop of stupidity.
*That's the main Union for civil servants.
If I remember my time in the job, Prospect was the union for experts and tech staff. They'll probably take you in if you ask.
There is another union for more senior staff. Not sure I'd be able to join.
What, the FDA? Canonically the union of Sir Humphrey Appleby? Well, if you want to slum it, fair enough, but Prospect is much sexier.
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.
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.
I think there's a lot more antisemitism about that is being tacitly accepted than many of us realised. A few spectacular idiots are very bold about it, but they are so bold because the feel comfortable in their own circles, circles apparently large enough that it is not a problem for them generally. If I were jewish I'd be increasingly concerned in this country.
Yes. Though it was why some of us were raising the alarm in the Corbyn years - and in the case of some community groups and scholars of the left, long before that. Defending, excusing, or promoting people with horrific views because they happened to be 'allies' on this totemic issue and associated 'anti-imperialist' ravings.
There's long been a problem of a complete inability (or unwillingness if feeling less charitable) to see or call out antisemitism that uses Israel or 'Zionism' as its justification and the basis for its reversion to the age-old conspiracy theories handed on from medieval Europe and the Middle East to the Nazis and then the Soviets, and back again.
I think what has shocked is the sheer lack of empathy and willingness to try and deny 7th October. Plus the behaviour of institutions which have been clueless in the face of hate and conspiracism coming from this direction as their entire framework for dealing with extremism looks the other way towards the right. That and some of the rank stupidity involved - which has been offensive and worrying of and in itself. Some of the most dreadful scenes have been in the US though.
Something went very wrong a while ago, but 7 October exposed it for all to see in the most terrible way possible.
I've just seen that the newly elected Head of my Union PCS* chose to speak today at the 'pro Palestine' rally. I shall be resigning my membership with immediate effect. These rallies seem nothing more than Iranian propaganda, Hamas adoration, antisemitic hate plus a large dollop of stupidity.
*That's the main Union for civil servants.
If I remember my time in the job, Prospect was the union for experts and tech staff. They'll probably take you in if you ask.
There is another union for more senior staff. Not sure I'd be able to join.
What, the FDA? Canonically the union of Sir Humphrey Appleby? Well, if you want to slum it, fair enough, but Prospect is much sexier.
I thought PCS was the only union I was eligible for. I'll take a look. General feeling is that PCS is in decline and it doesn't appear the leadership has much interest in changing that.
Some would say, no matter your political orientation, public finances must be brought in order for any welfare to be possible in the long term. Redistribution and social network rides on the back of a stable and well functioning economy to finance it. Unless you are into magical thinking that is how it must be. But there are many political levers in place to modify the performance of the economy. Single market is one such lever. Predictable regulative frameworks and business environment is another to get FDIs up. Finally providing industry stakeholders with a coordination and planning. All things the tories suuuuuck at. But bottom line: you can do anything in power if you are locked into IMF emergency funding requirements. That is why this cartoon is sooooo silly. To me, fiscal discipline, socialist or not, is key. If labour started spending the right wingers would simply call starmer an irresponsible corbynite.
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.
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.
I think there's a lot more antisemitism about that is being tacitly accepted than many of us realised. A few spectacular idiots are very bold about it, but they are so bold because the feel comfortable in their own circles, circles apparently large enough that it is not a problem for them generally. If I were jewish I'd be increasingly concerned in this country.
Yes. Though it was why some of us were raising the alarm in the Corbyn years - and in the case of some community groups and scholars of the left, long before that. Defending, excusing, or promoting people with horrific views because they happened to be 'allies' on this totemic issue and associated 'anti-imperialist' ravings.
There's long been a problem of a complete inability (or unwillingness if feeling less charitable) to see or call out antisemitism that uses Israel or 'Zionism' as its justification and the basis for its reversion to the age-old conspiracy theories handed on from medieval Europe and the Middle East to the Nazis and then the Soviets, and back again.
I think what has shocked is the sheer lack of empathy and willingness to try and deny 7th October. Plus the behaviour of institutions which have been clueless in the face of hate and conspiracism coming from this direction as their entire framework for dealing with extremism looks the other way towards the right. That and some of the rank stupidity involved - which has been offensive and worrying of and in itself. Some of the most dreadful scenes have been in the US though.
Something went very wrong a while ago, but 7 October exposed it for all to see in the most terrible way possible.
I've just seen that the newly elected Head of my Union PCS* chose to speak today at the 'pro Palestine' rally. I shall be resigning my membership with immediate effect. These rallies seem nothing more than Iranian propaganda, Hamas adoration, antisemitic hate plus a large dollop of stupidity.
Comments
Perhaps they'll make an exception?
It's also worth noting that there are already parties in the world, even in democratic states, whose names bear no relation to what they stand for, so centuries hold definitions of Toryism will not be determiniative now, even if people think it should to make sense.
"Dead people should be able to change their gender, says Labour MP
Nichols sparks criticism by calling for official records to be altered posthumously"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/03/transgender-nichols-gender-recognition-act-mp-change-nhs
When he moves to the board of OpenAI/Meta/Musks-batshit-thing - it's all too obvious. I'm not sure Kemi will manage to carry season 318 (great actress to all sides that she is) with that "Boris Johnson" standing in for the original Boris either.
But I'm fairly sure they'd prefer he stay in the US. The propaganda wouldn't be so effective from Moscow.
DKs invariably back the status quo as 2014 proved, just 29% back disestablishment.
46% of the UK are Christian. 13% are even confirmed members of the C of E, less than 5% of the fully appointed, unelected Lords are C of E bishops.
Only establishment guarantees every parishioner a C of E wedding or funeral as of right too
(I will be at the back with a giant box of popcorn)
Mr Sunak, who is Hindu, used the opportunity to reflect on the contribution of Christian communities across the country, calling them an important part of the “national fabric”.
“Easter Sunday gives us a chance to reflect on the considerable contribution Christian communities make to our national life, offering support and a sense of belonging to so many across the country," he said.
https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/uk-news/2023/04/08/uk-prime-minister-rishi-sunak-says-christian-values-are-british-values-in-easter-message/
Christian values include converting to Christianity those who wish to do so, it is the government's fault if it fails to deport those who threaten national security.
Though of course if he did he would cease to be a Tory and would have to be deposed
https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/12/majority-of-britons-believe-state-and-church-should-be-separate
Oh dear. So much for chat this week about Britain's @RoyalNavy aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth potentially being diverted for operations in the Red Sea to ease the burden on the US...
@NavyLookout
BREAKING:
Mechanical issue prevents HMS Queen Elizabeth from sailing on NATO exercise. Instead, HMS Prince of Wales will be readied to replace her.
https://twitter.com/faniaoz/status/1753906734681219456
...Herzl and Ben-Gurion got us legitimacy and international recognition - the messianics intend to destroy them. Ben-Gurion and the founding fathers and mothers gave us the Declaration of Independence - the messianics have long been trampling it. They actually wish turn the entire human race against us, including our very best friends.
The eternal nation, they chant, not afraid of a long road. But these days they are rushing headlong in the vile hope of conquering and emptying Gaza and settling in it.
Yes, even over the dead bodies of the hostages, over the dead bodies of the victims, over the dead bodies of the soldiers who fell and will fall in this battle...
Theodore of Tarsus v Wilfrid all over again.
I highly doubt QE was ever going to the Meccan Sea. If it got hit by one Hootie drone then that's the career of every flag rank involved in the decision up in smoke. It's not as if its presence there would force anything that could be marketed as a decisive victory so it's high risk/low reward for our chums in braid.
Labour ditches radical reforms as it prepares ‘bombproof’ election manifesto
Plans to reform social care and House of Lords are trimmed as Keir Starmer’s party opts for caution ahead of vote
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/03/labour-ditches-radical-reforms-as-it-prepares-bombproof-election-manifesto
There's long been a problem of a complete inability (or unwillingness if feeling less charitable) to see or call out antisemitism that uses Israel or 'Zionism' as its justification and the basis for its reversion to the age-old conspiracy theories handed on from medieval Europe and the Middle East to the Nazis and then the Soviets, and back again.
I think what has shocked is the sheer lack of empathy and willingness to try and deny 7th October. Plus the behaviour of institutions which have been clueless in the face of hate and conspiracism coming from this direction as their entire framework for dealing with extremism looks the other way towards the right. That and some of the rank stupidity involved - which has been offensive and worrying of and in itself. Some of the most dreadful scenes have been in the US though.
Something went very wrong a while ago, but 7 October exposed it for all to see in the most terrible way possible.
Politics: General consensus that young people are running riot in Scotland at the moment. Possible post-COVID effects, but also
1) Free bus travel for under 22 year olds has been a disaster. Lothian Buses in Edinburgh are regularly disrupted, and there are particular issues in places like Kilmarnock: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-62968519
2) Lenient sentencing for younger people
'Instead, it will focus on a fair pay agreement for care workers as well as issues of recruitment and retention, as part of a wider workers’ rights bill. Its plans for a complete overhaul of social care will, however, be presented as a longer-term mission taking at least 10 years and two parliaments.
In addition, despite Keir Starmer’s previous promises to abolish the Lords in a first term, it is expected to commit only to limited changes. This is likely to mean legislating only for the abolition of the remaining 91 hereditary peers.'
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/03/labour-ditches-radical-reforms-as-it-prepares-bombproof-election-manifesto
'The manifesto will also make much of a pledge to build 300,000 homes a year – a target in the last Conservative manifesto that has not been achieved. Starmer’s willingness to take on those who want to prevent any building on “greenfield” sites is used by Labour insiders to show the Labour leader is willing to take on potentially difficult battles, rather than always take a cautious path.'
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/03/labour-ditches-radical-reforms-as-it-prepares-bombproof-election-manifesto
*That's the main Union for civil servants.