If I was an Israeli, having seen anti-Semitism around the world, and having seen what happened on October 7th, I might well support Bibi's actions - if not vote for him.
If I was a Palestinian, having seen what Israel's doing, I might support Hamas - if not vote for them.
Although that's a major simplification, that's a difficulty I find with this - there's right and wrong on both sides.
That is spot on.
And it's why the circle needs to be broken.
It's why I am a great believer in another country - like Malaysia - taking over administration of Gaza. And in return for them essentially guaranteeing Israel's security, Israel has to remove the blockade on Gaza. Because while travel and trade with Gaza is impossible, so is development. And if there's no development, there can be no hope.
I'd agree with that, except I don't think it's workable as it would be in the interests of both sides to make the administrators 'occupiers', and untrusted by both sides. When has a foreign administration force worked in the medium term? Japan 1945 to 1952?
If I was an Israeli, having seen anti-Semitism around the world, and having seen what happened on October 7th, I might well support Bibi's actions - if not vote for him.
If I was a Palestinian, having seen what Israel's doing, I might support Hamas - if not vote for them.
Although that's a major simplification, that's a difficulty I find with this - there's right and wrong on both sides.
That is spot on.
And it's why the circle needs to be broken.
It's why I am a great believer in another country - like Malaysia - taking over administration of Gaza. And in return for them essentially guaranteeing Israel's security, Israel has to remove the blockade on Gaza. Because while travel and trade with Gaza is impossible, so is development. And if there's no development, there can be no hope.
I'd agree with that, except I don't think it's workable as it would be in the interests of both sides to make the administrators 'occupiers', and untrusted by both sides. When has a foreign administration force worked in the medium term? Japan 1945 to 1952?
If I was an Israeli, having seen anti-Semitism around the world, and having seen what happened on October 7th, I might well support Bibi's actions - if not vote for him.
If I was a Palestinian, having seen what Israel's doing, I might support Hamas - if not vote for them.
Although that's a major simplification, that's a difficulty I find with this - there's right and wrong on both sides.
That is spot on.
And it's why the circle needs to be broken.
It's why I am a great believer in another country - like Malaysia - taking over administration of Gaza. And in return for them essentially guaranteeing Israel's security, Israel has to remove the blockade on Gaza. Because while travel and trade with Gaza is impossible, so is development. And if there's no development, there can be no hope.
It's a nice idea, but the current Israeli government wouldn't go for it. Israeli politics and society have moved to the right in recent years. You need a shift in Israeli public opinion.
Peace. It's what the Israelis want and would go to quite some lengths to achieve if they thought it was a possibility. Not a peace interspersed with rockets and incursions and kidnappings and bombings but proper peace.
Somehow I can’t see Sunak calling that May election
The numbers are not going to be better in October/November/December
Probably not, but that’s not a persuasive argument for holding a GE in May. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas to be moved forward in the calendar
It is an argument for removing Richi though
I agree with that. Tories have nothing to lose now
They face total extinction within months. It can’t get any worse than total extinction
Get Farage as leader
Less than 50 Tory seats forecast with Truss before she resigned was near total extinction, 100-150 odd Tory seats now forecast in most polls with Rishi is 1997 levels and still Tories comfortably main opposition. Landslide defeat but far from extinction.
Even that latest Redfield poll is still better for the Tories than their worst under Truss and over 50 Tory seats
OT Just heard Cameron on radio. I thought he was very good. A humanitarian FS and a Tory. Who'd have thought? And what contrast to Starmer who seems to have an obsession with keeping on the right side of Israel and Jews which he seems to think are interchangeable however right wing or brutal they might be. He's becoming a total cringe.
There was a poster on here who heavily criticised Cameron's visit to Sri Lanka whilst he was PM. After the visit, he was singing Cameron's praises as he had not taken the expected line wrt the Tamils.
If I was an Israeli, having seen anti-Semitism around the world, and having seen what happened on October 7th, I might well support Bibi's actions - if not vote for him.
If I was a Palestinian, having seen what Israel's doing, I might support Hamas - if not vote for them.
Although that's a major simplification, that's a difficulty I find with this - there's right and wrong on both sides.
That is spot on.
And it's why the circle needs to be broken.
It's why I am a great believer in another country - like Malaysia - taking over administration of Gaza. And in return for them essentially guaranteeing Israel's security, Israel has to remove the blockade on Gaza. Because while travel and trade with Gaza is impossible, so is development. And if there's no development, there can be no hope.
It's a nice idea, but the current Israeli government wouldn't go for it. Israeli politics and society have moved to the right in recent years. You need a shift in Israeli public opinion.
Peace. It's what the Israelis want and would go to quite some lengths to achieve if they thought it was a possibility. Not a peace interspersed with rockets and incursions and kidnappings and bombings but proper peace.
Not a huge amount to ask ISTM.
Anyone can see that stopping and reversing the (illegal) West Bank settlements would be a huge step towards peace. The settlements haven't stopped.
Putin will not use nukes over Ukraine. The reason: it is of no advantage for him to use them.
Strategic weapons have massive consequences and risks.
Tactical weapons have very limited usefulness, and massive geopolitical consequences.
the US and China will have explains this to him, very clearly.
I agree with the first part of your post, but would it not follow from the second part that on some level Putin was given tacit 'permission' to invade Ukraine?
Our reaction to his 2014 adventures in Crimea and the Donbass may well have given him the impression we would do little. But I wouldn't call that 'permission': just that he figured the consequences' of his adventures would be less than they had been. Especially as he very nearly won in February 22. If he had won in 22, by now we would all have adjusted to the new 'normal' of a Russia-ruled Ukraine and still be sucking up Russian gas.
It's a bit (but not totally) like the Falklands Islands crisis; where the Argentinian views of Britain's actions were that we would not respond heavily to an invasion. They took the gamble, and were wrong.
Iraq when they invaded Kuwait too, after effectively been told by the US that they wouldn't interfere.
If I was an Israeli, having seen anti-Semitism around the world, and having seen what happened on October 7th, I might well support Bibi's actions - if not vote for him.
If I was a Palestinian, having seen what Israel's doing, I might support Hamas - if not vote for them.
Although that's a major simplification, that's a difficulty I find with this - there's right and wrong on both sides.
That is spot on.
And it's why the circle needs to be broken.
It's why I am a great believer in another country - like Malaysia - taking over administration of Gaza. And in return for them essentially guaranteeing Israel's security, Israel has to remove the blockade on Gaza. Because while travel and trade with Gaza is impossible, so is development. And if there's no development, there can be no hope.
I'd agree with that, except I don't think it's workable as it would be in the interests of both sides to make the administrators 'occupiers', and untrusted by both sides. When has a foreign administration force worked in the medium term? Japan 1945 to 1952?
West Berlin
The point there was that Germany had been totally defeated in total war. Neither Hamas nor Israel have been defeated.
Putin will not use nukes over Ukraine. The reason: it is of no advantage for him to use them.
Strategic weapons have massive consequences and risks.
Tactical weapons have very limited usefulness, and massive geopolitical consequences.
the US and China will have explains this to him, very clearly.
I agree with the first part of your post, but would it not follow from the second part that on some level Putin was given tacit 'permission' to invade Ukraine?
Our reaction to his 2014 adventures in Crimea and the Donbass may well have given him the impression we would do little. But I wouldn't call that 'permission': just that he figured the consequences' of his adventures would be less than they had been. Especially as he very nearly won in February 22. If he had won in 22, by now we would all have adjusted to the new 'normal' of a Russia-ruled Ukraine and still be sucking up Russian gas.
It's a bit (but not totally) like the Falklands Islands crisis; where the Argentinian views of Britain's actions were that we would not respond heavily to an invasion. They took the gamble, and were wrong.
Iraq when they invaded Kuwait too, after effectively been told by the US that they wouldn't interfere.
If I was an Israeli, having seen anti-Semitism around the world, and having seen what happened on October 7th, I might well support Bibi's actions - if not vote for him.
If I was a Palestinian, having seen what Israel's doing, I might support Hamas - if not vote for them.
Although that's a major simplification, that's a difficulty I find with this - there's right and wrong on both sides.
That is spot on.
And it's why the circle needs to be broken.
It's why I am a great believer in another country - like Malaysia - taking over administration of Gaza. And in return for them essentially guaranteeing Israel's security, Israel has to remove the blockade on Gaza. Because while travel and trade with Gaza is impossible, so is development. And if there's no development, there can be no hope.
It's a nice idea, but the current Israeli government wouldn't go for it. Israeli politics and society have moved to the right in recent years. You need a shift in Israeli public opinion.
Peace. It's what the Israelis want and would go to quite some lengths to achieve if they thought it was a possibility. Not a peace interspersed with rockets and incursions and kidnappings and bombings but proper peace.
Not a huge amount to ask ISTM.
Anyone can see that stopping and reversing the (illegal) West Bank settlements would be a huge step towards peace. The settlements haven't stopped.
As I said it's the sheep/lamb dynamic. They left Gaza completely and look where they are now. They were constantly under attack having pulled out of Gaza so probably thought why on earth would they pull out of the West Bank if nothing changes security-wise. They will need proof that it is worthwhile to leave the West Bank otherwise they won't bother.
OK you know what. I give up. This is like arguing with a kindergarten
Let's talk about potato printing
What is your actual point on Ukraine? I think if you were clearer you'd get a better response.
No I wouldn’t. Because I’ve been perfectly clear
PB is just unhinged on this subject and goes into some weird moral huff. I haven’t argued it for a while so I forgot. I’ve now been reminded and I shall abandon the cause like the appeaser I am
I do not repine. I shall drink red wine and read the hare with the amber eyes - which I cannot decide is genuinely brilliant or absurdly overrated
Sherry glass remember.
But on this, I've told you before, it's the taunting self-congratulatory tone. You're not actually saying anything particularly earth shattering (Ukraine might well not prevail over Russia) but it comes across as a mixture of boast and needle.
Almost everybody wants Ukraine to win and at the same time recognizes they might not. You are presenting as being some sort of 'lone voice' on the second and on the first as rather ambiguous because of a desire to be proved right.
Me, I think so much depends on the US election that it's pointless saying much more right now other than we're rooting for Ukraine and should keep up the support. There's only an argument to be had if you're disagreeing with either of those sentiments. Which for all the smoke you're not, are you?
Putin will not use nukes over Ukraine. The reason: it is of no advantage for him to use them.
Strategic weapons have massive consequences and risks.
Tactical weapons have very limited usefulness, and massive geopolitical consequences.
the US and China will have explains this to him, very clearly.
I agree with the first part of your post, but would it not follow from the second part that on some level Putin was given tacit 'permission' to invade Ukraine?
Our reaction to his 2014 adventures in Crimea and the Donbass may well have given him the impression we would do little. But I wouldn't call that 'permission': just that he figured the consequences' of his adventures would be less than they had been. Especially as he very nearly won in February 22. If he had won in 22, by now we would all have adjusted to the new 'normal' of a Russia-ruled Ukraine and still be sucking up Russian gas.
It's a bit (but not totally) like the Falklands Islands crisis; where the Argentinian views of Britain's actions were that we would not respond heavily to an invasion. They took the gamble, and were wrong.
Iraq when they invaded Kuwait too, after effectively been told by the US that they wouldn't interfere.
Putin will not use nukes over Ukraine. The reason: it is of no advantage for him to use them.
Strategic weapons have massive consequences and risks.
Tactical weapons have very limited usefulness, and massive geopolitical consequences.
the US and China will have explains this to him, very clearly.
I agree with the first part of your post, but would it not follow from the second part that on some level Putin was given tacit 'permission' to invade Ukraine?
The West lost deterrent credibility during the chaotic evacuation from Kabul.
As it turned out, Putin was wrong to think that the West would abandon Ukraine (or, he was wrong in 2022), but the debacle in Afghanistan gave him reason to think otherwise.
You think if Putin knew the western response to the invasion would be as it's been that he wouldn't have done it?
Well, it was the Ukrainian success in defending Kyiv that created the time for the West to decide to provide support. So I think his main miscalculation was in terms of the Ukrainian ability and resolve to resist. Had Kyiv fallen in the first month, and Zelenskyy executed, then Putin's gamble could have been said to have paid off, regardless of the Western support provided to whatever survived of West Ukraine.
There's some evidence that the decisive Western figure in February 2022 was Boris Johnson. Biden was content to let Kyiv fall and use the sanctions playbook.
"The American public doesn’t think Biden should be running for a second term. Partly as a result of that judgment, Biden now trails in the race for the presidency...[The problem can't] be dealt with by happy talk or by exhortations to circle the wagons."
OT Just heard Cameron on radio. I thought he was very good. A humanitarian FS and a Tory. Who'd have thought? And what contrast to Starmer who seems to have an obsession with keeping on the right side of Israel and Jews which he seems to think are interchangeable however right wing or brutal they might be. He's becoming a total cringe.
There was a poster on here who heavily criticised Cameron's visit to Sri Lanka whilst he was PM. After the visit, he was singing Cameron's praises as he had not taken the expected line wrt the Tamils.
It's a (slight) indication that Cameron is willing to take interesting and politically difficult positions on foreign relations.
It does that and contrasts with the feebleness of Starmer who seems interested in power for its own sake and nothing else. I can envisage him doing a deal with UKIP if it got him into No 10
If I was an Israeli, having seen anti-Semitism around the world, and having seen what happened on October 7th, I might well support Bibi's actions - if not vote for him.
If I was a Palestinian, having seen what Israel's doing, I might support Hamas - if not vote for them.
Although that's a major simplification, that's a difficulty I find with this - there's right and wrong on both sides.
That is spot on.
And it's why the circle needs to be broken.
It's why I am a great believer in another country - like Malaysia - taking over administration of Gaza. And in return for them essentially guaranteeing Israel's security, Israel has to remove the blockade on Gaza. Because while travel and trade with Gaza is impossible, so is development. And if there's no development, there can be no hope.
It's a nice idea, but the current Israeli government wouldn't go for it. Israeli politics and society have moved to the right in recent years. You need a shift in Israeli public opinion.
Peace. It's what the Israelis want and would go to quite some lengths to achieve if they thought it was a possibility. Not a peace interspersed with rockets and incursions and kidnappings and bombings but proper peace.
Not a huge amount to ask ISTM.
Anyone can see that stopping and reversing the (illegal) West Bank settlements would be a huge step towards peace. The settlements haven't stopped.
As I said it's the sheep/lamb dynamic. They left Gaza completely and look where they are now. They were constantly under attack having pulled out of Gaza so probably thought why on earth would they pull out of the West Bank if nothing changes security-wise. They will need proof that it is worthwhile to leave the West Bank otherwise they won't bother.
They were occupying the West Bank before they pulled out of Gaza. They were occupying the West Bank after they pulled out of Gaza. The West Bank settlements are not there because of a careful analysis of the situation in Gaza. The West Bank settlements are not there to increase security. The West Bank settlements have always worsened Israel's security situation.
There were very few settlements in Gaza and less religious justification for them. The withdrawal from Gaza was a bold and an important step towards peace, but it was far easier than doing the same in the West Bank.
Putin will not use nukes over Ukraine. The reason: it is of no advantage for him to use them.
Strategic weapons have massive consequences and risks.
Tactical weapons have very limited usefulness, and massive geopolitical consequences.
the US and China will have explains this to him, very clearly.
I agree with the first part of your post, but would it not follow from the second part that on some level Putin was given tacit 'permission' to invade Ukraine?
The West lost deterrent credibility during the chaotic evacuation from Kabul.
As it turned out, Putin was wrong to think that the West would abandon Ukraine (or, he was wrong in 2022), but the debacle in Afghanistan gave him reason to think otherwise.
You think if Putin knew the western response to the invasion would be as it's been that he wouldn't have done it?
Well, it was the Ukrainian success in defending Kyiv that created the time for the West to decide to provide support. So I think his main miscalculation was in terms of the Ukrainian ability and resolve to resist. Had Kyiv fallen in the first month, and Zelenskyy executed, then Putin's gamble could have been said to have paid off, regardless of the Western support provided to whatever survived of West Ukraine.
There's some evidence that the decisive Western figure in February 2022 was Boris Johnson. Biden was content to let Kyiv fall and use the sanctions playbook.
Much kudos due to @MoonRabbit - she called the £28bn move spot on. Most of PB was desperately wrong.
👏
My original thought was that it is pretty stupid to make such uncosted proposals, especially so far from an election, so rowing back is to be applauded.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
It is the church for everyone who lives in England and has UK citizenship yes, it is not a backdoor route for economic migrants not facing persecution to get UK citizenship
But who determines that? That's the issue. The vicar? Or the state? So why is the Party complaining about the vicars?
The state, if you aren't already Christian at passport control no religious persecution claim
So why are your colleagues in the Party complaining about the poor vicars?
The state is at fault but priests who convert those asylum seekers who aren't Christian already just seeking a passport are too
Sheer gibberish, isn't it? How could they be converted if they were Christian already? And how does "not Christian already" equate to "just seeking a passport"?
Thank the Lord we don't have "salvation by intelligence"!
They couldn't be and shouldn't be, conversions should be focused on the domestic English population only already resident here. Not Muslims seeking a temporary conversion for a passport for economic reasons before going back to Islam again
In the Times article, a priest recommended judging the sincerity of people's belief by using their willingness to do unpaid work as a shibboleth. Another said he'd had good success by soaking people with cold water in the winter.
By tutting at these easily-fooled liberals and crying that ducking stools sound a bit woke, you are rather missing the point. None of this stuff works. There's no way to tell whether people are sincere or not.
England tried this with the Test Acts for about seventy years. It didn't work. Today, there are more Catholics than Anglicans in England. In Ireland, the laws were harsher and in place for longer. The last of the Penal Laws was only lifted in 1829. But they still didn't work. Today, there are more than eight times more Catholics than Anglicans in Ireland.
Francis Bacon told us in the 16th century that Elizabeth I was unable to "make windows into men's hearts and secret thoughts". They were right.
How about focussing the asylum debate on things that can actually be measured and factors that we are able to control?
There is, you forbid conversions of immigrants who have arrived in the UK who weren't already Christian on arrival at the border.
Practising Roman Catholic worship was illegal in England from the mid 16th until the late 18th century and Catholic priests were forbidden to come here.
It is only since then that more Roman Catholics have worshipped ever Sunday than Anglicans in the UK, even if on membership terms more say they are Anglican than Catholic still even if they don't regularly attend church
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
It is the church for everyone who lives in England and has UK citizenship yes, it is not a backdoor route for economic migrants not facing persecution to get UK citizenship
But who determines that? That's the issue. The vicar? Or the state? So why is the Party complaining about the vicars?
The state, if you aren't already Christian at passport control no religious persecution claim
So why are your colleagues in the Party complaining about the poor vicars?
The state is at fault but priests who convert those asylum seekers who aren't Christian already just seeking a passport are too
Sheer gibberish, isn't it? How could they be converted if they were Christian already? And how does "not Christian already" equate to "just seeking a passport"?
Thank the Lord we don't have "salvation by intelligence"!
They couldn't be and shouldn't be, conversions should be focused on the domestic English population only already resident here. Not Muslims seeking a temporary conversion for a passport for economic reasons before going back to Islam again
In the Times article, a priest recommended judging the sincerity of people's belief by using their willingness to do unpaid work as a shibboleth. Another said he'd had good success by soaking people with cold water in the winter.
By tutting at these easily-fooled liberals and crying that ducking stools sound a bit woke, you are rather missing the point. None of this stuff works. There's no way to tell whether people are sincere or not.
England tried this with the Test Acts for about seventy years. It didn't work. Today, there are more Catholics than Anglicans in England. In Ireland, the laws were harsher and in place for longer. The last of the Penal Laws was only lifted in 1829. But they still didn't work. Today, there are more than eight times more Catholics than Anglicans in Ireland.
Francis Bacon told us in the 16th century that Elizabeth I was unable to "make windows into men's hearts and secret thoughts". They were right.
How about focussing the asylum debate on things that can actually be measured and factors that we are able to control?
There is, you forbid conversions of immigrants who have arrived in the UK who weren't already Christian on arrival at the border.
Practising Roman Catholic worship was illegal in the UK until the late 18th century and Catholic priests were forbidden to come here.
It is only since then that more Roman Catholics have worshipped ever Sunday than Anglicans in the UK, even if on membership terms more say they are Anglican than Catholic still even if they don't regularly attend church
I think it would undermine religious freedom to forbid conversions by any group. If there is a concern that people are faking conversions to get asylum decisions, you can just update how asylum decisions are made, put more caution around conversions, require more evidence they are real.
Much kudos due to @MoonRabbit - she called the £28bn move spot on. Most of PB was desperately wrong.
👏
My original thought was that it is pretty stupid to make such uncosted proposals, especially so far from an election, so rowing back is to be applauded.
It certainly does not seem to have done Starmer any harm
Maybe, and it is a maybe, the public are not as attached to net zero as many politicians and especially Sky and BBC
Can we drop ship them some white feathers to take out on their recruiting drives ?
We need to adjust to this bitter new reality. Putin is not going to be defeated in Ukraine, or not as we once hoped. He will not be forced to cede Crimea, he will not have to retreat to the 2013 borders
It's over, I think. It doesn't matter how much aid or kit we send to Ukraine, if they don't have the men they cannot prosecute the war: that's it. Done. Unless we are prepared to put our own NATO men in the field? But of course, we are not going to do that
Kyiv needs to seek a grim ceasefire and rebuild what is left of Ukraine, and NATO needs to make sure Poland is armed with nukes
NPXMP was saying something sensible along the lines of the first part of your final paragraph.
Of course the Ukrainian Ultra PB Chairborne Division (copyright dura ace) will have anyone who is not fully on board with continuing the war as a Putinist. However reality will eventually bite.
All wars end with either total defeat of one side or a compromise. Ukraine needs some belief that if it agreed to cede territory to the bully, the bully wouldn't be back in a few years time.
Like paying Danegeld only led to a need to pay more Danegeld.
And yet, what can they do if they run out of troops? Conscription (have they already done this?) Call up women too? (Have they already done this?)
They have conscription, but the minimum age for conscription is something like 29. This is because the age cohort of the 20s is particularly small, so it would be demographically catastrophic to suffer heavy casualties in that age cohort.
This is one of the things behind Zelenskyy replacing Zaluzhny - disagreements about the future of conscription.
Again, the more in the way of ammunition, long-range weaponry, etc, that we provide, then the lower will be Ukraine's casualties. Being able to fire fewer artillery shells than Russia is not helpful when trying to minimise their own casualties. Being forbidden from firing NATO munitions at targets in Russia does not heThey'lp Ukraine minimise their casualties. Being denied long-range weapons does not help Ukraine to minimise their casualties.
I want Ukraine to have its best chance of decreasing Russia so that any other dictator tempted to invade a democratic neighbour will reconsider. There is more that we could do to improve Ukraine's chances.
The minimum age for conscription in Ukraine is 27. Or so I was told by Ukrainians, in Ukraine, coming up to their 27th birthdays
They've run out of men and the war is lost. To the extent that it can no longer be won. We are now asking them to sacrifice the last cohort of young people for..... what exactly?
I'm sorry: we're asking them?
This isn't our war. We're not fighting. We're not choosing to fight.
Even if the war is utterly futile, it's their fight.
And when they give in, and the Russian troops come in, and they round up those who supported the war and shoot them? And when they rape the women?
Will that have been a perfectly reasonable price to pay?
They are fighting so the flame of their country is not estinguished, so they can avoid the brutal occupation of the Russians.
We are not fighting. And we are certainly not forcing them to fight.
Stirring words, and all true in a way, but this is realpolitik
They cannot win, as I see it. Let's say I am right for the purposes of this argument
If they come to us as their allies, and ask our advice, what should we say? Urge them to fight on, even though we know they cannot win? Is that moral?
They're not coming to us for advice, they're coming to us for aid.
And so long as they keep fighting and asking, we should keep giving.
But what if they do seek our advice?
Look at it this way
Imagine Ukraine is your best friend at school and he's in a fight.He's already had a leg broken and lost a few teeth, but he will survive. He is incredibly brave, and the attack on him was unprovoked. Unfortunately he is fighting an absolute lying thug who is three times his size and known for brutal cruelty
The fighting has reached a stalemate, the thug is hinting at calling it a draw, but if it kicks off again it is much more likely your friend will lose both eyes and an arm, rather than the thug losing . The friend turns to you and asks for advice. You are his friend. What do you say? Maybe nothing? Say: it's up to you?
Or as a good friend is it better to say, Look, you're gonna lose both eyes if you fight on, take the draw for now and then we can go home and I will teach you judo
And, if the bullying thug makes clear that he's going to beat the crap out of your friend, and his relative that he already has in his power, what then?
Almost certainly Putins ceasefire conditions would include keeping the currently occupied territories, regime change in Kyiv, and ending of Western nations military and financial aid.
So the bully would not be allowing judo lessons or a gun, but rather seeing the victim have both arms broken.
How the feck do you know that? Has anyone asked Putin?
if those are his conditions then yes, they would surely be intolerable, certainly for Kyiv
But has anyone asked?
I thought you said you sat through the entire two hour interview with Carlson. You seem to have missed the bitwhere he asks are you done yet? And Putin answers, no I'm not, because they are all Nazis.
OT Just heard Cameron on radio. I thought he was very good. A humanitarian FS and a Tory. Who'd have thought? And what contrast to Starmer who seems to have an obsession with keeping on the right side of Israel and Jews which he seems to think are interchangeable however right wing or brutal they might be. He's becoming a total cringe.
There was a poster on here who heavily criticised Cameron's visit to Sri Lanka whilst he was PM. After the visit, he was singing Cameron's praises as he had not taken the expected line wrt the Tamils.
It's a (slight) indication that Cameron is willing to take interesting and politically difficult positions on foreign relations.
It does that and contrasts with the feebleness of Starmer who seems interested in power for its own sake and nothing else. I can envisage him doing a deal with UKIP if it got him into No 10
Really? Perhaps you need a trip to Barnard Castle?
Putin will not use nukes over Ukraine. The reason: it is of no advantage for him to use them.
Strategic weapons have massive consequences and risks.
Tactical weapons have very limited usefulness, and massive geopolitical consequences.
the US and China will have explains this to him, very clearly.
I agree with the first part of your post, but would it not follow from the second part that on some level Putin was given tacit 'permission' to invade Ukraine?
The West lost deterrent credibility during the chaotic evacuation from Kabul.
As it turned out, Putin was wrong to think that the West would abandon Ukraine (or, he was wrong in 2022), but the debacle in Afghanistan gave him reason to think otherwise.
You think if Putin knew the western response to the invasion would be as it's been that he wouldn't have done it?
Well, it was the Ukrainian success in defending Kyiv that created the time for the West to decide to provide support. So I think his main miscalculation was in terms of the Ukrainian ability and resolve to resist. Had Kyiv fallen in the first month, and Zelenskyy executed, then Putin's gamble could have been said to have paid off, regardless of the Western support provided to whatever survived of West Ukraine.
There's some evidence that the decisive Western figure in February 2022 was Boris Johnson. Biden was content to let Kyiv fall and use the sanctions playbook.
I've heard that 152mm artillery ammunition supplied quietly by the Bulgarians played the decisive role in the Battle of Kyiv, but certainly Boris Johnson's actions and words in support of Ukraine were the greatest of his time as PM, and arguably of this period of Conservative government since 2010.
It was the battle of the u-turner v the nasty gimp and his refusal to apologize .
The problem for Sunak is those who were relieved at Johnson going and thought he would just be a nicer PM are now realizing he’s just the same nasty odious character but in a better suit .
OT Just heard Cameron on radio. I thought he was very good. A humanitarian FS and a Tory. Who'd have thought? And what contrast to Starmer who seems to have an obsession with keeping on the right side of Israel and Jews which he seems to think are interchangeable however right wing or brutal they might be. He's becoming a total cringe.
Cameron is just a more polished liar, an arse of arses.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
It is the church for everyone who lives in England and has UK citizenship yes, it is not a backdoor route for economic migrants not facing persecution to get UK citizenship
But who determines that? That's the issue. The vicar? Or the state? So why is the Party complaining about the vicars?
The state, if you aren't already Christian at passport control no religious persecution claim
So why are your colleagues in the Party complaining about the poor vicars?
The state is at fault but priests who convert those asylum seekers who aren't Christian already just seeking a passport are too
Sheer gibberish, isn't it? How could they be converted if they were Christian already? And how does "not Christian already" equate to "just seeking a passport"?
Thank the Lord we don't have "salvation by intelligence"!
They couldn't be and shouldn't be, conversions should be focused on the domestic English population only already resident here. Not Muslims seeking a temporary conversion for a passport for economic reasons before going back to Islam again
In the Times article, a priest recommended judging the sincerity of people's belief by using their willingness to do unpaid work as a shibboleth. Another said he'd had good success by soaking people with cold water in the winter.
By tutting at these easily-fooled liberals and crying that ducking stools sound a bit woke, you are rather missing the point. None of this stuff works. There's no way to tell whether people are sincere or not.
England tried this with the Test Acts for about seventy years. It didn't work. Today, there are more Catholics than Anglicans in England. In Ireland, the laws were harsher and in place for longer. The last of the Penal Laws was only lifted in 1829. But they still didn't work. Today, there are more than eight times more Catholics than Anglicans in Ireland.
Francis Bacon told us in the 16th century that Elizabeth I was unable to "make windows into men's hearts and secret thoughts". They were right.
How about focussing the asylum debate on things that can actually be measured and factors that we are able to control?
There is, you forbid conversions of immigrants who have arrived in the UK who weren't already Christian on arrival at the border.
Practising Roman Catholic worship was illegal in England from the mid 16th until the late 18th century and Catholic priests were forbidden to come here.
It is only since then that more Roman Catholics have worshipped ever Sunday than Anglicans in the UK, even if on membership terms more say they are Anglican than Catholic still even if they don't regularly attend church
How can you prove that they weren't Christian before they left their home country, though? That's an especially pertinent question for places like Syria which had, until recently, a well-established Christian community.
Imagine someone living in an area now controlled by Islamist militants, and who has been practising Christianity in secret. It's too dangerous to keep baptism records, let alone church attendance records - so they'll have no proof of either. Nevertheless, they are devoutly Christian and are in peril every day that they practise their faith.
Would you really turn down their asylum claim just because they had turned up to worship at a church in the UK?
Starmer's like a sure-footed cat slinking towards a big plate of whiskas.
Sunak being like my cat Florence then, who spends lots of time snarling and getting her hackles up at the other bigger cat, before quietly creeping away.
Much kudos due to @MoonRabbit - she called the £28bn move spot on. Most of PB was desperately wrong.
👏
My original thought was that it is pretty stupid to make such uncosted proposals, especially so far from an election, so rowing back is to be applauded.
It certainly does not seem to have done Starmer any harm
Maybe, and it is a maybe, the public are not as attached to net zero as many politicians and especially Sky and BBC
For the country's sake a GE is needed asap
Or maybe the public simply don't pay much attention to 99% of political news.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
It is the church for everyone who lives in England and has UK citizenship yes, it is not a backdoor route for economic migrants not facing persecution to get UK citizenship
But who determines that? That's the issue. The vicar? Or the state? So why is the Party complaining about the vicars?
The state, if you aren't already Christian at passport control no religious persecution claim
So why are your colleagues in the Party complaining about the poor vicars?
The state is at fault but priests who convert those asylum seekers who aren't Christian already just seeking a passport are too
Sheer gibberish, isn't it? How could they be converted if they were Christian already? And how does "not Christian already" equate to "just seeking a passport"?
Thank the Lord we don't have "salvation by intelligence"!
They couldn't be and shouldn't be, conversions should be focused on the domestic English population only already resident here. Not Muslims seeking a temporary conversion for a passport for economic reasons before going back to Islam again
In the Times article, a priest recommended judging the sincerity of people's belief by using their willingness to do unpaid work as a shibboleth. Another said he'd had good success by soaking people with cold water in the winter.
By tutting at these easily-fooled liberals and crying that ducking stools sound a bit woke, you are rather missing the point. None of this stuff works. There's no way to tell whether people are sincere or not.
England tried this with the Test Acts for about seventy years. It didn't work. Today, there are more Catholics than Anglicans in England. In Ireland, the laws were harsher and in place for longer. The last of the Penal Laws was only lifted in 1829. But they still didn't work. Today, there are more than eight times more Catholics than Anglicans in Ireland.
Francis Bacon told us in the 16th century that Elizabeth I was unable to "make windows into men's hearts and secret thoughts". They were right.
How about focussing the asylum debate on things that can actually be measured and factors that we are able to control?
There is, you forbid conversions of immigrants who have arrived in the UK who weren't already Christian on arrival at the border.
Practising Roman Catholic worship was illegal in the UK until the late 18th century and Catholic priests were forbidden to come here.
It is only since then that more Roman Catholics have worshipped ever Sunday than Anglicans in the UK, even if on membership terms more say they are Anglican than Catholic still even if they don't regularly attend church
I think it would undermine religious freedom to forbid conversions by any group. If there is a concern that people are faking conversions to get asylum decisions, you can just update how asylum decisions are made, put more caution around conversions, require more evidence they are real.
Or better still just stop conversions for asylum seekers altogether, if they want it on religious grounds they will need to have been of that religion already when they arrived on UK shores
Much kudos due to @MoonRabbit - she called the £28bn move spot on. Most of PB was desperately wrong.
👏
My original thought was that it is pretty stupid to make such uncosted proposals, especially so far from an election, so rowing back is to be applauded.
It was a pretty good announcement by Labour in Summer 2021, when it seemed vanishingly unlikely that they would have to implement it.
See also Lib Dems on tuition fees and Cameron on an EU referendum.
As the probability of a Labour majority government has increased, it has made less and less sense. Not because investment is bad, or green investment isn't essential, but focusing on a number is the wrong approach.
Better to have a controlled explosion now than later. And most of the public probably haven't noticed.
Putin will not use nukes over Ukraine. The reason: it is of no advantage for him to use them.
Strategic weapons have massive consequences and risks.
Tactical weapons have very limited usefulness, and massive geopolitical consequences.
the US and China will have explains this to him, very clearly.
I agree with the first part of your post, but would it not follow from the second part that on some level Putin was given tacit 'permission' to invade Ukraine?
Our reaction to his 2014 adventures in Crimea and the Donbass may well have given him the impression we would do little. But I wouldn't call that 'permission': just that he figured the consequences' of his adventures would be less than they had been. Especially as he very nearly won in February 22. If he had won in 22, by now we would all have adjusted to the new 'normal' of a Russia-ruled Ukraine and still be sucking up Russian gas.
It's a bit (but not totally) like the Falklands Islands crisis; where the Argentinian views of Britain's actions were that we would not respond heavily to an invasion. They took the gamble, and were wrong.
Iraq when they invaded Kuwait too, after effectively been told by the US that they wouldn't interfere.
That’s not true
The Americans said that they weren’t taking sides in the dispute between Kuwait and Iraq over extraction of oil from cross border oil fields.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
It is the church for everyone who lives in England and has UK citizenship yes, it is not a backdoor route for economic migrants not facing persecution to get UK citizenship
But who determines that? That's the issue. The vicar? Or the state? So why is the Party complaining about the vicars?
The state, if you aren't already Christian at passport control no religious persecution claim
So why are your colleagues in the Party complaining about the poor vicars?
The state is at fault but priests who convert those asylum seekers who aren't Christian already just seeking a passport are too
Sheer gibberish, isn't it? How could they be converted if they were Christian already? And how does "not Christian already" equate to "just seeking a passport"?
Thank the Lord we don't have "salvation by intelligence"!
They couldn't be and shouldn't be, conversions should be focused on the domestic English population only already resident here. Not Muslims seeking a temporary conversion for a passport for economic reasons before going back to Islam again
In the Times article, a priest recommended judging the sincerity of people's belief by using their willingness to do unpaid work as a shibboleth. Another said he'd had good success by soaking people with cold water in the winter.
By tutting at these easily-fooled liberals and crying that ducking stools sound a bit woke, you are rather missing the point. None of this stuff works. There's no way to tell whether people are sincere or not.
England tried this with the Test Acts for about seventy years. It didn't work. Today, there are more Catholics than Anglicans in England. In Ireland, the laws were harsher and in place for longer. The last of the Penal Laws was only lifted in 1829. But they still didn't work. Today, there are more than eight times more Catholics than Anglicans in Ireland.
Francis Bacon told us in the 16th century that Elizabeth I was unable to "make windows into men's hearts and secret thoughts". They were right.
How about focussing the asylum debate on things that can actually be measured and factors that we are able to control?
There is, you forbid conversions of immigrants who have arrived in the UK who weren't already Christian on arrival at the border.
Practising Roman Catholic worship was illegal in the UK until the late 18th century and Catholic priests were forbidden to come here.
It is only since then that more Roman Catholics have worshipped ever Sunday than Anglicans in the UK, even if on membership terms more say they are Anglican than Catholic still even if they don't regularly attend church
I think it would undermine religious freedom to forbid conversions by any group. If there is a concern that people are faking conversions to get asylum decisions, you can just update how asylum decisions are made, put more caution around conversions, require more evidence they are real.
Or better still just stop conversions for asylum seekers altogether, if they want it on religious grounds they will need to have been of that religion already when they arrived on UK shores
HYUFD, you say you're a Christian. Let me remind you...
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Gastronomic question for British (English, Scottish, Welsh or indeed N Irish) patriots.
Our French neighbour and her little girl are coming for dinner tomorrow and I’ve promised some classic British cooking. Main course and pudding are easy: I’m going toad in the hole (with a nod to it being shroud Tuesday) and some sort of nursery pudding. But what about a starter? I’m stuck.
All I can think of is seafood options but I’m not a fan of prawn cocktail, sceptical I’ll find any brown shrimps to “pot”, certainly won’t track down kippers or cockles. Or there are other non fishy things that won’t be found down the local Carrefour market like haggis or game pie. And Welsh rarebit has been blatantly culturally appropriated by the French as “le Welsh” and presented as a speciality of the Ch’tis.
OK you know what. I give up. This is like arguing with a kindergarten
Let's talk about potato printing
What is your actual point on Ukraine? I think if you were clearer you'd get a better response.
No I wouldn’t. Because I’ve been perfectly clear
PB is just unhinged on this subject and goes into some weird moral huff. I haven’t argued it for a while so I forgot. I’ve now been reminded and I shall abandon the cause like the appeaser I am
I do not repine. I shall drink red wine and read the hare with the amber eyes - which I cannot decide is genuinely brilliant or absurdly overrated
Sherry glass remember.
But on this, I've told you before, it's the taunting self-congratulatory tone. You're not actually saying anything particularly earth shattering (Ukraine might well not prevail over Russia) but it comes across as a mixture of boast and needle.
Almost everybody wants Ukraine to win and at the same time recognizes they might not. You are presenting as being some sort of 'lone voice' on the second and on the first as rather ambiguous because of a desire to be proved right.
Me, I think so much depends on the US election that it's pointless saying much more right now other than we're rooting for Ukraine and should keep up the support. There's only an argument to be had if you're disagreeing with either of those sentiments. Which for all the smoke you're not, are you?
Except I’ve actually given evidence for what happened when I began making this argument in 2023 (see upthread). I wasn’t taunting or needling then, I was pointing out that having actually been to wartime ukraine - unlike anyone else on this forum bar @sandpit - and having seen the scale of the injuries and deaths already visible in ukraines male population - crutches, wounds, graves - I realised early on that Ukraine was facing a manpower situation that would only get worse. Because Russia is so much bigger
I was shouted down. Called a doom porn monger. Called a fucking appeaser and a putinist shill for merely reporting what I could see with my own fucking eyes
So, no, you’re wrong. Yet again
Truth is:
1. I went to Ukraine 2. I was therefore better informed than almost anyone here 3. I have an open mind - I called the war then, said it would be really hard to win for Kyiv, cause not enough men 4. I was abused for it, by much of the forum. I wasn’t “repeating what everyone believes anyway”
So, yes
5. I am now telling a lot of people to go fuck themselves because
Gastronomic question for British (English, Scottish, Welsh or indeed N Irish) patriots.
Our French neighbour and her little girl are coming for dinner tomorrow and I’ve promised some classic British cooking. Main course and pudding are easy: I’m going toad in the hole (with a nod to it being shroud Tuesday) and some sort of nursery pudding. But what about a starter? I’m stuck.
All I can think of is seafood options but I’m not a fan of prawn cocktail, sceptical I’ll find any brown shrimps to “pot”, certainly won’t track down kippers or cockles. Or there are other non fishy things that won’t be found down the local Carrefour market like haggis or game pie. And Welsh rarebit has been blatantly culturally appropriated by the French as “le Welsh” and presented as a speciality of the Ch’tis.
Gastronomic question for British (English, Scottish, Welsh or indeed N Irish) patriots.
Our French neighbour and her little girl are coming for dinner tomorrow and I’ve promised some classic British cooking. Main course and pudding are easy: I’m going toad in the hole (with a nod to it being shroud Tuesday) and some sort of nursery pudding. But what about a starter? I’m stuck.
All I can think of is seafood options but I’m not a fan of prawn cocktail, sceptical I’ll find any brown shrimps to “pot”, certainly won’t track down kippers or cockles. Or there are other non fishy things that won’t be found down the local Carrefour market like haggis or game pie. And Welsh rarebit has been blatantly culturally appropriated by the French as “le Welsh” and presented as a speciality of the Ch’tis.
Please advise. And don’t say melon and ham.
A Normandy flatmate once excitedly said he was going to make us a Normandy specialty to eat. He made a shepherd's pie. It was very sad when we explained to him that, tasty though it was, it was not unexplored culinary territory for us.
This does not help resolve your problem. What about cubes of cheddar and pineapple on cocktail sticks, a la Abigail's Party?
Gastronomic question for British (English, Scottish, Welsh or indeed N Irish) patriots.
Our French neighbour and her little girl are coming for dinner tomorrow and I’ve promised some classic British cooking. Main course and pudding are easy: I’m going toad in the hole (with a nod to it being shroud Tuesday) and some sort of nursery pudding. But what about a starter? I’m stuck.
All I can think of is seafood options but I’m not a fan of prawn cocktail, sceptical I’ll find any brown shrimps to “pot”, certainly won’t track down kippers or cockles. Or there are other non fishy things that won’t be found down the local Carrefour market like haggis or game pie. And Welsh rarebit has been blatantly culturally appropriated by the French as “le Welsh” and presented as a speciality of the Ch’tis.
Please advise. And don’t say melon and ham.
Soup! There are many classic British soups. Leek & potato soup. Oxtail. London Particular. Cock-a-Leekie. Scotch Broth.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
It is the church for everyone who lives in England and has UK citizenship yes, it is not a backdoor route for economic migrants not facing persecution to get UK citizenship
But who determines that? That's the issue. The vicar? Or the state? So why is the Party complaining about the vicars?
The state, if you aren't already Christian at passport control no religious persecution claim
So why are your colleagues in the Party complaining about the poor vicars?
The state is at fault but priests who convert those asylum seekers who aren't Christian already just seeking a passport are too
Sheer gibberish, isn't it? How could they be converted if they were Christian already? And how does "not Christian already" equate to "just seeking a passport"?
Thank the Lord we don't have "salvation by intelligence"!
They couldn't be and shouldn't be, conversions should be focused on the domestic English population only already resident here. Not Muslims seeking a temporary conversion for a passport for economic reasons before going back to Islam again
In the Times article, a priest recommended judging the sincerity of people's belief by using their willingness to do unpaid work as a shibboleth. Another said he'd had good success by soaking people with cold water in the winter.
By tutting at these easily-fooled liberals and crying that ducking stools sound a bit woke, you are rather missing the point. None of this stuff works. There's no way to tell whether people are sincere or not.
England tried this with the Test Acts for about seventy years. It didn't work. Today, there are more Catholics than Anglicans in England. In Ireland, the laws were harsher and in place for longer. The last of the Penal Laws was only lifted in 1829. But they still didn't work. Today, there are more than eight times more Catholics than Anglicans in Ireland.
Francis Bacon told us in the 16th century that Elizabeth I was unable to "make windows into men's hearts and secret thoughts". They were right.
How about focussing the asylum debate on things that can actually be measured and factors that we are able to control?
There is, you forbid conversions of immigrants who have arrived in the UK who weren't already Christian on arrival at the border.
Practising Roman Catholic worship was illegal in the UK until the late 18th century and Catholic priests were forbidden to come here.
It is only since then that more Roman Catholics have worshipped ever Sunday than Anglicans in the UK, even if on membership terms more say they are Anglican than Catholic still even if they don't regularly attend church
I think it would undermine religious freedom to forbid conversions by any group. If there is a concern that people are faking conversions to get asylum decisions, you can just update how asylum decisions are made, put more caution around conversions, require more evidence they are real.
Or better still just stop conversions for asylum seekers altogether ...
Gastronomic question for British (English, Scottish, Welsh or indeed N Irish) patriots.
Our French neighbour and her little girl are coming for dinner tomorrow and I’ve promised some classic British cooking. Main course and pudding are easy: I’m going toad in the hole (with a nod to it being shroud Tuesday) and some sort of nursery pudding. But what about a starter? I’m stuck.
All I can think of is seafood options but I’m not a fan of prawn cocktail, sceptical I’ll find any brown shrimps to “pot”, certainly won’t track down kippers or cockles. Or there are other non fishy things that won’t be found down the local Carrefour market like haggis or game pie. And Welsh rarebit has been blatantly culturally appropriated by the French as “le Welsh” and presented as a speciality of the Ch’tis.
Please advise. And don’t say melon and ham.
Soup! There are many classic British soups. Leek & potato soup. Oxtail. London Particular. Cock-a-Leekie. Scotch Broth.
If the conflict ends up frozen, it will end up informally frozen. As in, the Ukrainians and Russians will be so dug in, and will so lack reinforcements, that forward movement will be impossible. (You might argue that point has been reached already.)
Both sides would effectively abandon offensive operations, but would continue to man the trenches on the front line. Which would, in turn, be increasingly well defended.
But that's not something that involves "advice", that's one potential natural consequence of a war where attacking is incredibly expensive.
And it's not cost free for either country, albeit casualties would be dramatically reduced.
That's not a situation, mind, where we tell the Ukrainians not to fight. That's not a situation, either, where we stop sending arms and ammunition to Ukraine.
Is this not perhaps one of the worst-case scenarios for the west?
An aggrieved Russia, given breathing room to re-arm, to build up their defence industrial base, and to forge new allies. A pissed-off Russia, watching huge quantities of materiel continuing to flood into Ukraine from Europe (and maybe America). A Russia that's brooding over something like looks uncomfortably like failure, and is desperate to grab some sort of success from wherever it can.
Might that not put it on a hair-trigger, ready to lash out given the slightest excuse? And that excuse could anything - shipping being held up in the Turkish Straits, a submarine accident in the GIUK gap, even something like a fishing dispute.
It would leave the world being a much more dangerous place.
Gastronomic question for British (English, Scottish, Welsh or indeed N Irish) patriots.
Our French neighbour and her little girl are coming for dinner tomorrow and I’ve promised some classic British cooking. Main course and pudding are easy: I’m going toad in the hole (with a nod to it being shroud Tuesday) and some sort of nursery pudding. But what about a starter? I’m stuck.
All I can think of is seafood options but I’m not a fan of prawn cocktail, sceptical I’ll find any brown shrimps to “pot”, certainly won’t track down kippers or cockles. Or there are other non fishy things that won’t be found down the local Carrefour market like haggis or game pie. And Welsh rarebit has been blatantly culturally appropriated by the French as “le Welsh” and presented as a speciality of the Ch’tis.
Please advise. And don’t say melon and ham.
Not classic British but if you have a toastie machine make Lobster Thermidor filled toasties, just need a half for each person with a ramekin of Thermidor sauce to dip in and a little side salad.
Or a nice salad with chicken livers fried with red onions, croutons, lardons and a nice berry based vinaigrette with salad leaves of choice. Just pretend it’s British.
Or maybe more British with black pudding and scallops and a pea purée as easily presentable as British.
Gastronomic question for British (English, Scottish, Welsh or indeed N Irish) patriots.
Our French neighbour and her little girl are coming for dinner tomorrow and I’ve promised some classic British cooking. Main course and pudding are easy: I’m going toad in the hole (with a nod to it being shroud Tuesday) and some sort of nursery pudding. But what about a starter? I’m stuck.
All I can think of is seafood options but I’m not a fan of prawn cocktail, sceptical I’ll find any brown shrimps to “pot”, certainly won’t track down kippers or cockles. Or there are other non fishy things that won’t be found down the local Carrefour market like haggis or game pie. And Welsh rarebit has been blatantly culturally appropriated by the French as “le Welsh” and presented as a speciality of the Ch’tis.
Please advise. And don’t say melon and ham.
Not classic British but if you have a toastie machine make Lobster Thermidor filled toasties, just need a half for each person with a ramekin of Thermidor sauce to dip in and a little side salad.
Or a nice salad with chicken livers fried with red onions, croutons, lardons and a nice berry based vinaigrette with salad leaves of choice. Just pretend it’s British.
Or maybe more British with black pudding and scallops and a pea purée as easily presentable as British.
You've got a heavy main and potentially a heavy pudding, so I'd avoid a stodgy starter (haggis). Simple Scottish smoked salmon (or trout for a bit of a change) with scottish oatcakes? Keep it simple. You could do a 'trio' (with hot smoked and salmon pate) if you wanted to gussy it up. Though pate is French again.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
You're equating 'C of E' with 'holding a UK passport'.
It is the church for everyone who lives in England and has UK citizenship yes, it is not a backdoor route for economic migrants not facing persecution to get UK citizenship
But who determines that? That's the issue. The vicar? Or the state? So why is the Party complaining about the vicars?
The state, if you aren't already Christian at passport control no religious persecution claim
So why are your colleagues in the Party complaining about the poor vicars?
The state is at fault but priests who convert those asylum seekers who aren't Christian already just seeking a passport are too
Sheer gibberish, isn't it? How could they be converted if they were Christian already? And how does "not Christian already" equate to "just seeking a passport"?
Thank the Lord we don't have "salvation by intelligence"!
They couldn't be and shouldn't be, conversions should be focused on the domestic English population only already resident here. Not Muslims seeking a temporary conversion for a passport for economic reasons before going back to Islam again
In the Times article, a priest recommended judging the sincerity of people's belief by using their willingness to do unpaid work as a shibboleth. Another said he'd had good success by soaking people with cold water in the winter.
By tutting at these easily-fooled liberals and crying that ducking stools sound a bit woke, you are rather missing the point. None of this stuff works. There's no way to tell whether people are sincere or not.
England tried this with the Test Acts for about seventy years. It didn't work. Today, there are more Catholics than Anglicans in England. In Ireland, the laws were harsher and in place for longer. The last of the Penal Laws was only lifted in 1829. But they still didn't work. Today, there are more than eight times more Catholics than Anglicans in Ireland.
Francis Bacon told us in the 16th century that Elizabeth I was unable to "make windows into men's hearts and secret thoughts". They were right.
How about focussing the asylum debate on things that can actually be measured and factors that we are able to control?
There is, you forbid conversions of immigrants who have arrived in the UK who weren't already Christian on arrival at the border.
Practising Roman Catholic worship was illegal in the UK until the late 18th century and Catholic priests were forbidden to come here.
It is only since then that more Roman Catholics have worshipped ever Sunday than Anglicans in the UK, even if on membership terms more say they are Anglican than Catholic still even if they don't regularly attend church
I think it would undermine religious freedom to forbid conversions by any group. If there is a concern that people are faking conversions to get asylum decisions, you can just update how asylum decisions are made, put more caution around conversions, require more evidence they are real.
Or better still just stop conversions for asylum seekers altogether, if they want it on religious grounds they will need to have been of that religion already when they arrived on UK shores
HYUFD, you say you're a Christian. Let me remind you...
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
So nothing there about supporting references for Muslim asylum seekers already in the UK converting to Christianity on a temporary basis to get UK citizenship, thanks.
You can still provide them with food and water and clothing
Gastronomic question for British (English, Scottish, Welsh or indeed N Irish) patriots.
Our French neighbour and her little girl are coming for dinner tomorrow and I’ve promised some classic British cooking. Main course and pudding are easy: I’m going toad in the hole (with a nod to it being shroud Tuesday) and some sort of nursery pudding. But what about a starter? I’m stuck.
All I can think of is seafood options but I’m not a fan of prawn cocktail, sceptical I’ll find any brown shrimps to “pot”, certainly won’t track down kippers or cockles. Or there are other non fishy things that won’t be found down the local Carrefour market like haggis or game pie. And Welsh rarebit has been blatantly culturally appropriated by the French as “le Welsh” and presented as a speciality of the Ch’tis.
Please advise. And don’t say melon and ham.
Not classic British but if you have a toastie machine make Lobster Thermidor filled toasties, just need a half for each person with a ramekin of Thermidor sauce to dip in and a little side salad.
Or a nice salad with chicken livers fried with red onions, croutons, lardons and a nice berry based vinaigrette with salad leaves of choice. Just pretend it’s British.
Or maybe more British with black pudding and scallops and a pea purée as easily presentable as British.
You've got a heavy main and potentially a heavy pudding, so I'd avoid a stodgy starter (haggis). Simple Scottish smoked salmon (or trout for a bit of a change) with scottish oatcakes? Keep it simple. You could do a 'trio' (with hot smoked and salmon pate) if you wanted to gussy it up. Though pate is French again.
And unless you're desperate for them to sample your spotted dick, you could do something like a lemon posset for pudding. Or you can't beat apple crumble.
Gastronomic question for British (English, Scottish, Welsh or indeed N Irish) patriots.
Our French neighbour and her little girl are coming for dinner tomorrow and I’ve promised some classic British cooking. Main course and pudding are easy: I’m going toad in the hole (with a nod to it being shroud Tuesday) and some sort of nursery pudding. But what about a starter? I’m stuck.
All I can think of is seafood options but I’m not a fan of prawn cocktail, sceptical I’ll find any brown shrimps to “pot”, certainly won’t track down kippers or cockles. Or there are other non fishy things that won’t be found down the local Carrefour market like haggis or game pie. And Welsh rarebit has been blatantly culturally appropriated by the French as “le Welsh” and presented as a speciality of the Ch’tis.
Comments
Not a huge amount to ask ISTM.
Even that latest Redfield poll is still better for the Tories than their worst under Truss and over 50 Tory seats
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/15/david-cameron-visits-tamils-sri-lanka
It's a (slight) indication that Cameron is willing to take interesting and politically difficult positions on foreign relations.
I think it's time to lay her.
But on this, I've told you before, it's the taunting self-congratulatory tone. You're not actually saying anything particularly earth shattering (Ukraine might well not prevail over Russia) but it comes across as a mixture of boast and needle.
Almost everybody wants Ukraine to win and at the same time recognizes they might not. You are presenting as being some sort of 'lone voice' on the second and on the first as rather ambiguous because of a desire to be proved right.
Me, I think so much depends on the US election that it's pointless saying much more right now other than we're rooting for Ukraine and should keep up the support. There's only an argument to be had if you're disagreeing with either of those sentiments. Which for all the smoke you're not, are you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_invasion_of_Kuwait#Iraq–United_States_correspondence
👏
@BillKristol
·
2h
"The American public doesn’t think Biden should be running for a second term. Partly as a result of that judgment, Biden now trails in the race for the presidency...[The problem can't] be dealt with by happy talk or by exhortations to circle the wagons."
Granted apprenticeships may be fewer but at least those that still exist now offer proper training.
There were very few settlements in Gaza and less religious justification for them. The withdrawal from Gaza was a bold and an important step towards peace, but it was far easier than doing the same in the West Bank.
Practising Roman Catholic worship was illegal in England from the mid 16th until the late 18th century and Catholic priests were forbidden to come here.
It is only since then that more Roman Catholics have worshipped ever Sunday than Anglicans in the UK, even if on membership terms more say they are Anglican than Catholic still even if they don't regularly attend church
Me and you, Barnes, me and you. 🙂
Maybe, and it is a maybe, the public are not as attached to net zero as many politicians and especially Sky and BBC
For the country's sake a GE is needed asap
I’m on ep2 of the last season
The problem for Sunak is those who were relieved at Johnson going and thought he would just be a nicer PM are now realizing he’s just the same nasty odious character but in a better suit .
Imagine someone living in an area now controlled by Islamist militants, and who has been practising Christianity in secret. It's too dangerous to keep baptism records, let alone church attendance records - so they'll have no proof of either. Nevertheless, they are devoutly Christian and are in peril every day that they practise their faith.
Would you really turn down their asylum claim just because they had turned up to worship at a church in the UK?
Sky are saying a ceasefire deal has been agreed but Netanyahu cannot agree as he does not want peace for his own career ambition and self preservation
Shocking
See also Lib Dems on tuition fees and Cameron on an EU referendum.
As the probability of a Labour majority government has increased, it has made less and less sense. Not because investment is bad, or green investment isn't essential, but focusing on a number is the wrong approach.
Better to have a controlled explosion now than later. And most of the public probably haven't noticed.
The Americans said that they weren’t taking sides in the dispute between Kuwait and Iraq over extraction of oil from cross border oil fields.
https://x.com/adamstoon1/status/1756994406660407737?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Our French neighbour and her little girl are coming for dinner tomorrow and I’ve promised some classic British cooking. Main course and pudding are easy: I’m going toad in the hole (with a nod to it being shroud Tuesday) and some sort of nursery pudding. But what about a starter? I’m stuck.
All I can think of is seafood options but I’m not a fan of prawn cocktail, sceptical I’ll find any brown shrimps to “pot”, certainly won’t track down kippers or cockles. Or there are other non fishy things that won’t be found down the local Carrefour market like haggis or game pie. And Welsh rarebit has been blatantly culturally appropriated by the French as “le Welsh” and presented as a speciality of the Ch’tis.
Please advise. And don’t say melon and ham.
I was shouted down. Called a doom porn monger. Called a fucking appeaser and a putinist shill for merely reporting what I could see with my own fucking eyes
So, no, you’re wrong. Yet again
Truth is:
1. I went to Ukraine
2. I was therefore better informed than almost anyone here
3. I have an open mind - I called the war then, said it would be really hard to win for Kyiv, cause not enough men
4. I was abused for it, by much of the forum. I wasn’t “repeating what everyone believes anyway”
So, yes
5. I am now telling a lot of people to go fuck themselves because
6. I was right and they were wrong
This does not help resolve your problem. What about cubes of cheddar and pineapple on cocktail sticks, a la Abigail's Party?
NEW THREAD
An aggrieved Russia, given breathing room to re-arm, to build up their defence industrial base, and to forge new allies. A pissed-off Russia, watching huge quantities of materiel continuing to flood into Ukraine from Europe (and maybe America). A Russia that's brooding over something like looks uncomfortably like failure, and is desperate to grab some sort of success from wherever it can.
Might that not put it on a hair-trigger, ready to lash out given the slightest excuse? And that excuse could anything - shipping being held up in the Turkish Straits, a submarine accident in the GIUK gap, even something like a fishing dispute.
It would leave the world being a much more dangerous place.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4679413/#Comment_4679413
Or a nice salad with chicken livers fried with red onions, croutons, lardons and a nice berry based vinaigrette with salad leaves of choice. Just pretend it’s British.
Or maybe more British with black pudding and scallops and a pea purée as easily presentable as British.
You can still provide them with food and water and clothing
@TimS so you see it.