Following Hoylegate – politicalbetting.com
How closely did Britons follow news around the Lindsay Hoyle / Gaza ceasefire Commons vote?Very/fairly closely: 31%Not very closely: 26%Aware, but not following: 25%Not aware: 18%https://t.co/Kf55GLGUHl pic.twitter.com/cqA6Uujgbv
Comments
-
Blogging will be very light this weekend again, sorry.0
-
We'll have to talk cricket instead.TheScreamingEagles said:Blogging will be very light this weekend again, sorry.
England getting buggered by this annoying Jaiswal feller, again.0 -
What's the worry? Later this year it's going to be hectic, have a rest while you can, we can entertain ourselves..TheScreamingEagles said:Blogging will be very light this weekend again, sorry.
4 -
Good morning, everyone.
In response to FPT comment, Labour calling for Anderson to lose the whip:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-683885790 -
Pleasant looking morning today; hope it lasts. I’m due to attend an online memorial service for an old acquaintance this afternoon. First time I’ve been to something like that. Hope it all works!5
-
Will Liz Truss have to be disappointed?Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
In response to FPT comment, Labour calling for Anderson to lose the whip:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-683885792 -
Hardly surprising - replace the word Muslim with Jew and you are in to loop conspiracy theory categories...Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
In response to FPT comment, Labour calling for Anderson to lose the whip:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-683885791 -
A line in the sand for the Tories. Will they go full Islamaphobic for 2024 or is it better to wait til 2027?eek said:
Hardly surprising - replace the word Muslim with Jew and you are in to loop conspiracy theory categories...Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
In response to FPT comment, Labour calling for Anderson to lose the whip:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-683885790 -
Presumably you mean since your accident ... but very much agree.OldKingCole said:Pleasant looking morning today; hope it lasts. I’m due to attend an online memorial service for an old acquaintance this afternoon. First time I’ve been to something like that. Hope it all works!
Crisp frosty sunny morning here.0 -
I took it that the it was a first online memorial service not the first memorial service he had attended.Carnyx said:
Presumably you mean since your accident ... but very much agree.OldKingCole said:Pleasant looking morning today; hope it lasts. I’m due to attend an online memorial service for an old acquaintance this afternoon. First time I’ve been to something like that. Hope it all works!
Crisp frosty sunny morning here.1 -
O/T but interesting report. Unexpected side effect of Conservative policy (but also other things) - huge increase in will disputes.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/feb/24/record-number-inheritance-disputes-england-and-wales-wills
"The growth is being driven by the passing of the property-rich baby boomer generation, which has increased the financial stakes for descendants; increases in second marriages leading to stepchildren being disinherited; and a rise in dementia leading to more claims that wills were not properly drawn up. [...]
The execution of wills by video link during the Covid pandemic could also be leading to greater challenges, lawyers said. They also cited the cost of living crisis as driving children to risk challenges simply because they need the money."
I hadn't realised how eye-watering some of the legal costs can be. But equally the importance of writing the blasted thing properly in the first place. And having a lawyer do it who can attest if need be that one is capax/compos mentis.
0 -
Those seem like massive numbers.
No-one I knew mentioned it and even I didn't care.0 -
They’ve been supportive of Lee Anderson so far so I think the answer is at least part Islamophobic.noneoftheabove said:
A line in the sand for the Tories. Will they go full Islamaphobic for 2024 or is it better to wait til 2027?eek said:
Hardly surprising - replace the word Muslim with Jew and you are in to loop conspiracy theory categories...Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
In response to FPT comment, Labour calling for Anderson to lose the whip:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68388579
Here’s the line https://x.com/kevinaschofield/status/1761115423846641989?s=46
They really are a bunch of arses2 -
Yes, first online memorial service. When you get into your 80s, funerals seem to come around quite regularly!eek said:
I took it that the it was a first online memorial service not the first memorial service he had attended.Carnyx said:
Presumably you mean since your accident ... but very much agree.OldKingCole said:Pleasant looking morning today; hope it lasts. I’m due to attend an online memorial service for an old acquaintance this afternoon. First time I’ve been to something like that. Hope it all works!
Crisp frosty sunny morning here.2 -
Islamophobia remains a stupid term.
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.0 -
If nothing else it is surely a bit insulting to Rishi to say that the Islamists are in charge now rather than the PM. (On pb we all know of course that it is Starmer who is really in charge and responsible for the ills of the world).TimS said:
They’ve been supportive of Lee Anderson so far so I think the answer is at least part Islamophobic.noneoftheabove said:
A line in the sand for the Tories. Will they go full Islamaphobic for 2024 or is it better to wait til 2027?eek said:
Hardly surprising - replace the word Muslim with Jew and you are in to loop conspiracy theory categories...Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
In response to FPT comment, Labour calling for Anderson to lose the whip:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-683885790 -
No-one appears to have suggested Lee Anderson be arrested! Just that maybe lying and inflaming tensions means he should lose the whip.Morris_Dancer said:Islamophobia remains a stupid term.
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.0 -
My experience too. OddCasino_Royale said:Those seem like massive numbers.
No-one I knew mentioned it and even I didn't care.1 -
Over-treating is relatively rare according to Mrs DA. Frankly, most practices don't need to and they would rather do more simple procedures on different patients than more procedures on a single patient where there is a greater chance of complications.FF43 said:<
Like car MOTs you want dentists to find and fix what's necessary but not more than necessary.
However you get the impression the amount they fix is only slightly related to the state of your teeth.
The usual bent car business fiddle is charging for work that was NEVER done, not charging for unnecessary work. Put a dab of paint on your sump plug the next time your car goes for a service see how often dealers actually change the oil compared to how often they charge for it.1 -
Remember Chris Hitchens on “Islamophobia”Morris_Dancer said:Islamophobia remains a stupid term.
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChristopherHitchens/s/ZIJKHatKs8
Absolutely and chillingly prescient. What he foresaw has come to pass1 -
Labour expelled their Rochdale candidate for saying far milder stuff than this. If the Tories don't kick Anderson out for this it will be a very worrying sign of the kind of blatantly racist and Islamophobic campaign we can expect from them come the general election.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
In response to FPT comment, Labour calling for Anderson to lose the whip:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-683885792 -
Of course such criticism should be legally protected in a free society. As someone who dislikes organised religions generally I concur with some of it.Morris_Dancer said:Islamophobia remains a stupid term.
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.
However, criticism of the the criticism is also equally legally protected and reasonable.
When Anderson talks about the Islamists being in charge, having control of Starmer and London belonging to Sadiq and his mates, it is just simple Islamaphobia, not reasonable criticism of a religion.1 -
Quite, but Anderson's comments - attacking Khan simply because he is a Muslim - are very much in the former category.Morris_Dancer said:Islamophobia remains a stupid term.
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.1 -
If being Islamaphobic and racist was a sackable offence we'd lose the leader of the opposition. if we carried it on to PB.Com we'd lose some of our most prominent posters.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
In response to FPT comment, Labour calling for Anderson to lose the whip:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68388579
It struck me yesterday that denying Ms Begum the right to return because she chose to join a crackpot army on an immoral mission in a foreign land sounded quite wise if we could legally get away with it.
But what about those British adventurers who have joined the IDF? On their return do they lose their citizenship and if not why not? Suppose Israel are found guilty of genocide. Will that tip the balance?
We live in a very partial country at the moment and it's one of the reasons so many are so pissed off with the way things are.2 -
Small violin time folks.
Oakeshott on the difficulties of getting the help out in the sticks.
"In my part of the Cotswolds, there is such a mismatch of supply and demand for domestic work that the going rate for a cleaner is at least £20 an hour."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/23/youd-be-a-fool-to-hire-anyone-to-work-for-you-in-britain/?li_source=LI&li_medium=for_you1 -
Saying Khan is controlled by Islamists “who are his mates” based on zero, nothing, other than his faith, is Islamophobia. Khan is dull. He’s not an Islamist.bondegezou said:
No-one appears to have suggested Lee Anderson be arrested! Just that maybe lying and inflaming tensions means he should lose the whip.Morris_Dancer said:Islamophobia remains a stupid term.
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.0 -
At what rate would she be willing to clean the homes of other people and travel to get there?rottenborough said:Small violin time folks.
Oakeshott on the difficulties of getting the help out in the sticks.
"In my part of the Cotswolds, there is such a mismatch of supply and demand for domestic work that the going rate for a cleaner is at least £20 an hour."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/23/youd-be-a-fool-to-hire-anyone-to-work-for-you-in-britain/?li_source=LI&li_medium=for_you
For me I'd start to get interested at around £100 per hour. I doubt she would be less.0 -
Mr. Boy, indeed, I'm not in any way approving of Anderson's nonsense.0
-
Nanotechnology hasn't advanced far enough to produce a violin of the required size.rottenborough said:Small violin time folks.
Oakeshott on the difficulties of getting the help out in the sticks.
"In my part of the Cotswolds, there is such a mismatch of supply and demand for domestic work that the going rate for a cleaner is at least £20 an hour."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/23/youd-be-a-fool-to-hire-anyone-to-work-for-you-in-britain/?li_source=LI&li_medium=for_you6 -
Khan as a lawyer defended some really dodgy Muslim causes. He has admitted itOnlyLivingBoy said:
Quite, but Anderson's comments - attacking Khan simply because he is a Muslim - are very much in the former category.Morris_Dancer said:Islamophobia remains a stupid term.
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.
“Among those he has defended were Louis Farrakhan, the controversial leader of the Nation of Islam, when he tried unsuccessfully to visit the UK.
He also campaigned to prevent the extradition to the US of Babar Ahmed who later pleaded guilty to terrorist offences.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-i-represented-unsavoury-individuals-when-i-was-a-human-rights-lawyer-a3183266.html
Why did he choose those cases? And not others? These are legitimate questions0 -
At least she won't have that problem if Tice But Dim wins Hartlegrad in the GE. She'll be able to get her entire house cleaned from top to bottom for two B&H sellotaped to an Aero.rottenborough said:Small violin time folks.
Oakeshott on the difficulties of getting the help out in the sticks.
"In my part of the Cotswolds, there is such a mismatch of supply and demand for domestic work that the going rate for a cleaner is at least £20 an hour."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/23/youd-be-a-fool-to-hire-anyone-to-work-for-you-in-britain/?li_source=LI&li_medium=for_you2 -
I don’t think I’d do it for less than £300 p.h.noneoftheabove said:
At what rate would she be willing to clean the homes of other people and travel to get there?rottenborough said:Small violin time folks.
Oakeshott on the difficulties of getting the help out in the sticks.
"In my part of the Cotswolds, there is such a mismatch of supply and demand for domestic work that the going rate for a cleaner is at least £20 an hour."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/23/youd-be-a-fool-to-hire-anyone-to-work-for-you-in-britain/?li_source=LI&li_medium=for_you
For me I'd start to get interested at around £100 per hour. I doubt she would be less.0 -
Anyone been enjoying Truss’ adventures in the US. When will the right get serious and stop her? Her ego trip and grievance is not helping them. A shrewd right wing would put her out to pasture.0
-
How is Starmer Islamophobic and racist?Roger said:
If being Islamaphobic and racist was a sackable offence we'd lose the leader of the opposition. if we carried it on to PB.Com we'd lose some of our most prominent posters.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
In response to FPT comment, Labour calling for Anderson to lose the whip:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68388579
It struck me yesterday that denying Ms Begum the right to return because she chose to join a crackpot army on an immoral mission in a foreign land sounded quite wise if we could legally get away with it.
But what about those British adventurers who have joined the IDF? On their return do they lose their citizenship and if not why not? Suppose Israel are found guilty of genocide. Will that tip the balance?
We live in a very partial country at the moment and it's one of the reasons so many are so pissed off with the way things are.0 -
...
The flip side to that notion can be applied to the Labour Party who conflate Benjamin Netanyahu's policy in Gaza with Luciana Berger.Morris_Dancer said:Islamophobia remains a stupid term.
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.
I believe any terms of reference for "disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea such as Islam" (or indeed Judaism or Christianity- and the various flavours thereof) should be carefully considered. Anyway, why would you want to "disrespect" anyone's faith? You may have already tied yourself up in knots there Morris.0 -
He was a human rights lawyer and these were human rights cases and everyone, good and bad, needs legal representation. Come on Leon, you're a smart guy, you're better than this. Nobody who isn't a racist or a deeply partisan hack can imagine that Khan is an Islamist. Just substitute the word Jew for Muslim in Anderson's comments. He has crossed a line and needs to be sacked.Leon said:
Khan as a lawyer defended some really dodgy Muslim causes. He has admitted itOnlyLivingBoy said:
Quite, but Anderson's comments - attacking Khan simply because he is a Muslim - are very much in the former category.Morris_Dancer said:Islamophobia remains a stupid term.
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.
“Among those he has defended were Louis Farrakhan, the controversial leader of the Nation of Islam, when he tried unsuccessfully to visit the UK.
He also campaigned to prevent the extradition to the US of Babar Ahmed who later pleaded guilty to terrorist offences.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-i-represented-unsavoury-individuals-when-i-was-a-human-rights-lawyer-a3183266.html
Why did he choose those cases? And not others? These are legitimate questions6 -
Because you've never heard of the cab rank rule?Leon said:
Khan as a lawyer defended some really dodgy Muslim causes. He has admitted itOnlyLivingBoy said:
Quite, but Anderson's comments - attacking Khan simply because he is a Muslim - are very much in the former category.Morris_Dancer said:Islamophobia remains a stupid term.
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.
“Among those he has defended were Louis Farrakhan, the controversial leader of the Nation of Islam, when he tried unsuccessfully to visit the UK.
He also campaigned to prevent the extradition to the US of Babar Ahmed who later pleaded guilty to terrorist offences.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-i-represented-unsavoury-individuals-when-i-was-a-human-rights-lawyer-a3183266.html
Why did he choose those cases? And not others? These are legitimate questions
For somebody who bangs about his intelligence and knowledge, you are remarkably lacking in so many areas.5 -
Except as a lawyer he strenuously defended IslamistsTimS said:
Saying Khan is controlled by Islamists “who are his mates” based on zero, nothing, other than his faith, is Islamophobia. Khan is dull. He’s not an Islamist.bondegezou said:
No-one appears to have suggested Lee Anderson be arrested! Just that maybe lying and inflaming tensions means he should lose the whip.Morris_Dancer said:Islamophobia remains a stupid term.
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.
And he has family links to extremist Muslims
“The links of mayoral hopeful Sadiq Khan’s former brother-in-law to one of the UK’s most notorious extremist organisations are revealed today.
Top London lawyer Makbool Javaid was married to the Labour Party candidate’s sister Farhat Khan until 2011.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exposed-sadiq-khans-family-links-to-extremist-organisation-a3179066.html
Imagine if a Tory London mayor was an ex lawyer known for defending the human rights of Nazis in court. Imagine if it was then revealed that his brother in law is a Nazi involved in far right causes
Would you just laugh that off? Accuse people of being racist for mentioning it? Or would you say Hmmm, these things are worth noting?-1 -
The Tories shrinking base will like Anderson’s comments and I expect will also appeal to Reform.
Of course if this had been a Labour MP saying a mayor had been taken over by the Jewish lobby there would have been outrage and the right wing media would have gone into overdrive .
If you call out anti-Semitism but don’t call out Anderson’s comments then clearly the rules apply differently .
2 -
No, it’s bollocksOnlyLivingBoy said:
He was a human rights lawyer and these were human rights cases and everyone, good and bad, needs legal representation. Come on Leon, you're a smart guy, you're better than this. Nobody who isn't a racist or a deeply partisan hack can imagine that Khan is an Islamist. Just substitute the word Jew for Muslim in Anderson's comments. He has crossed a line and needs to be sacked.Leon said:
Khan as a lawyer defended some really dodgy Muslim causes. He has admitted itOnlyLivingBoy said:
Quite, but Anderson's comments - attacking Khan simply because he is a Muslim - are very much in the former category.Morris_Dancer said:Islamophobia remains a stupid term.
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.
“Among those he has defended were Louis Farrakhan, the controversial leader of the Nation of Islam, when he tried unsuccessfully to visit the UK.
He also campaigned to prevent the extradition to the US of Babar Ahmed who later pleaded guilty to terrorist offences.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-i-represented-unsavoury-individuals-when-i-was-a-human-rights-lawyer-a3183266.html
Why did he choose those cases? And not others? These are legitimate questions
You are doing exactly what Chris Hitchens predicted in that video. Trying to shut down any criticism of Islam or Muslims by using the blanket term “Islamophobia” because it sounds like “racist” and no one wants to be thought of as a racist0 -
Have you ever been able to choose your brother-in-law?Leon said:
Except as a lawyer he strenuously defended IslamistsTimS said:
Saying Khan is controlled by Islamists “who are his mates” based on zero, nothing, other than his faith, is Islamophobia. Khan is dull. He’s not an Islamist.bondegezou said:
No-one appears to have suggested Lee Anderson be arrested! Just that maybe lying and inflaming tensions means he should lose the whip.Morris_Dancer said:Islamophobia remains a stupid term.
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.
And he has family links to extremist Muslims
“The links of mayoral hopeful Sadiq Khan’s former brother-in-law to one of the UK’s most notorious extremist organisations are revealed today.
Top London lawyer Makbool Javaid was married to the Labour Party candidate’s sister Farhat Khan until 2011.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exposed-sadiq-khans-family-links-to-extremist-organisation-a3179066.html
Imagine if a Tory London mayor was an ex lawyer known for defending the human rights of Nazis in court. Imagine if it was then revealed that his brother in law is a Nazi involved in far right causes
Would you just laugh that off? Accuse people of being racist for mentioning it? Or would you say Hmmm, these things are worth noting?4 -
Well played, sir.ydoethur said:
We'll have to talk cricket instead.TheScreamingEagles said:Blogging will be very light this weekend again, sorry.
England getting buggered by this annoying Jaiswal feller, again.0 -
Mr. Pete, I didn't say I wanted to disrespect someone's faith.
I said that doing so should be legally protected.
Why should a faith be legally protected from disrespect? Who determines what counts as disrespect? How could such a law be formulated that doesn't become a de facto blasphemy law?0 -
Do lawyers that defend murderers in court support murder? No.
This recent meme of attacking defence lawyers is really, really disturbing.9 -
The going rate for a s*** columnist and shock-jock hack is at least ten times that, and at the end of her hour the laundry still hasn't been donerottenborough said:Small violin time folks.
Oakeshott on the difficulties of getting the help out in the sticks.
"In my part of the Cotswolds, there is such a mismatch of supply and demand for domestic work that the going rate for a cleaner is at least £20 an hour."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/23/youd-be-a-fool-to-hire-anyone-to-work-for-you-in-britain/?li_source=LI&li_medium=for_you1 -
Morning Carnyx, was a bit grey to start with here but crisp and getting sunny now on west coast as well.Carnyx said:
Presumably you mean since your accident ... but very much agree.OldKingCole said:Pleasant looking morning today; hope it lasts. I’m due to attend an online memorial service for an old acquaintance this afternoon. First time I’ve been to something like that. Hope it all works!
Crisp frosty sunny morning here.1 -
Lawyers defend bad people shocker ! Who knew ! And now we’re onto someone who used to be married to Khan’s sister upto 2011.Leon said:
Except as a lawyer he strenuously defended IslamistsTimS said:
Saying Khan is controlled by Islamists “who are his mates” based on zero, nothing, other than his faith, is Islamophobia. Khan is dull. He’s not an Islamist.bondegezou said:
No-one appears to have suggested Lee Anderson be arrested! Just that maybe lying and inflaming tensions means he should lose the whip.Morris_Dancer said:Islamophobia remains a stupid term.
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.
And he has family links to extremist Muslims
“The links of mayoral hopeful Sadiq Khan’s former brother-in-law to one of the UK’s most notorious extremist organisations are revealed today.
Top London lawyer Makbool Javaid was married to the Labour Party candidate’s sister Farhat Khan until 2011.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exposed-sadiq-khans-family-links-to-extremist-organisation-a3179066.html
Imagine if a Tory London mayor was an ex lawyer known for defending the human rights of Nazis in court. Imagine if it was then revealed that his brother in law is a Nazi involved in far right causes
Would you just laugh that off? Accuse people of being racist for mentioning it? Or would you say Hmmm, these things are worth noting?0 -
That's interesting. I heard Louise Ellman saying yesterday that being anti Zionist is anti semitic. Obviously not everyone agrees but just the fact of her having said it means you will now be deemed an anti semite and not welcome in the Labour Party if you say it or have said it. A good parallel to not supporting the tenets of IslamMorris_Dancer said:Islamophobia remains a stupid term.
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.0 -
Nobody who isn’t a racist can imagine that… but you have to remember that some people are racists. Even some people who claim to be smart are racists.OnlyLivingBoy said:
He was a human rights lawyer and these were human rights cases and everyone, good and bad, needs legal representation. Come on Leon, you're a smart guy, you're better than this. Nobody who isn't a racist or a deeply partisan hack can imagine that Khan is an Islamist. Just substitute the word Jew for Muslim in Anderson's comments. He has crossed a line and needs to be sacked.Leon said:
Khan as a lawyer defended some really dodgy Muslim causes. He has admitted itOnlyLivingBoy said:
Quite, but Anderson's comments - attacking Khan simply because he is a Muslim - are very much in the former category.Morris_Dancer said:Islamophobia remains a stupid term.
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.
“Among those he has defended were Louis Farrakhan, the controversial leader of the Nation of Islam, when he tried unsuccessfully to visit the UK.
He also campaigned to prevent the extradition to the US of Babar Ahmed who later pleaded guilty to terrorist offences.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-i-represented-unsavoury-individuals-when-i-was-a-human-rights-lawyer-a3183266.html
Why did he choose those cases? And not others? These are legitimate questions0 -
Other than your guilt by association, do you gave any evidence that he's "controlled by his Islamist mates" ?Leon said:
Except as a lawyer he strenuously defended IslamistsTimS said:
Saying Khan is controlled by Islamists “who are his mates” based on zero, nothing, other than his faith, is Islamophobia. Khan is dull. He’s not an Islamist.bondegezou said:
No-one appears to have suggested Lee Anderson be arrested! Just that maybe lying and inflaming tensions means he should lose the whip.Morris_Dancer said:Islamophobia remains a stupid term.
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.
And he has family links to extremist Muslims
“The links of mayoral hopeful Sadiq Khan’s former brother-in-law to one of the UK’s most notorious extremist organisations are revealed today.
Top London lawyer Makbool Javaid was married to the Labour Party candidate’s sister Farhat Khan until 2011.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exposed-sadiq-khans-family-links-to-extremist-organisation-a3179066.html
Imagine if a Tory London mayor was an ex lawyer known for defending the human rights of Nazis in court. Imagine if it was then revealed that his brother in law is a Nazi involved in far right causes
Would you just laugh that off? Accuse people of being racist for mentioning it? Or would you say Hmmm, these things are worth noting?
"Worth noting" is fairly contemptible parsing of Anderson's bigotry.0 -
Both Liz and Lee are chasing the batshit crazy vote, and both are fully at home and welcome in the modern Tory party.0
-
Million dollar, cut the crap question is pretty simple though.Leon said:
Except as a lawyer he strenuously defended IslamistsTimS said:
Saying Khan is controlled by Islamists “who are his mates” based on zero, nothing, other than his faith, is Islamophobia. Khan is dull. He’s not an Islamist.bondegezou said:
No-one appears to have suggested Lee Anderson be arrested! Just that maybe lying and inflaming tensions means he should lose the whip.Morris_Dancer said:Islamophobia remains a stupid term.
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.
And he has family links to extremist Muslims
“The links of mayoral hopeful Sadiq Khan’s former brother-in-law to one of the UK’s most notorious extremist organisations are revealed today.
Top London lawyer Makbool Javaid was married to the Labour Party candidate’s sister Farhat Khan until 2011.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exposed-sadiq-khans-family-links-to-extremist-organisation-a3179066.html
Imagine if a Tory London mayor was an ex lawyer known for defending the human rights of Nazis in court. Imagine if it was then revealed that his brother in law is a Nazi involved in far right causes
Would you just laugh that off? Accuse people of being racist for mentioning it? Or would you say Hmmm, these things are worth noting?
Are Anderson's comments-in particular the ones about Khan being controlled by Islamists- compatible with his continuing to be Conservative deputy chairman, or even a Conservative MP?
0 -
Up to 1992 the Tories had an MP whose brother was hanged for being a Nazi supporter.
Said Tory MP was a minister and also Harold MacMillan's son-in-law.
Obviously the Tories, SuperMac, and Thatcher were Nazis in Leon's head.3 -
Standard part of my Jury speech and one I shall be boring the denizens of Inverness on Monday morning.Jonathan said:Do lawyers that defend murderers in court support murder? No.
This recent meme of attacking defence lawyers is really, really disturbing.
" Mr X is represented by my learned friend Mr Y and that is an essential part of our process. The evidence that the Crown brings to the court requires to be tested and challenged. It is not in the public interest that innocent people be found guilty but it is in the public interest that those whose guilt is properly proven beyond a reasonable doubt should be convicted and punished for their crimes."
Honestly, it sounds better when I am saying it out loud. 😉9 -
Answer my pointnico679 said:
Lawyers defend bad people shocker ! Who knew ! And now we’re onto someone who used to be married to Khan’s sister upto 2011.Leon said:
Except as a lawyer he strenuously defended IslamistsTimS said:
Saying Khan is controlled by Islamists “who are his mates” based on zero, nothing, other than his faith, is Islamophobia. Khan is dull. He’s not an Islamist.bondegezou said:
No-one appears to have suggested Lee Anderson be arrested! Just that maybe lying and inflaming tensions means he should lose the whip.Morris_Dancer said:Islamophobia remains a stupid term.
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.
And he has family links to extremist Muslims
“The links of mayoral hopeful Sadiq Khan’s former brother-in-law to one of the UK’s most notorious extremist organisations are revealed today.
Top London lawyer Makbool Javaid was married to the Labour Party candidate’s sister Farhat Khan until 2011.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exposed-sadiq-khans-family-links-to-extremist-organisation-a3179066.html
I magine if a Tory London mayor was an ex lawyer known for defending the human rights of Nazis in court. Imagine if it was then revealed that his brother in law is a Nazi involved in far right causes
Would you just laugh that off? Accuse people of being racist for mentioning it? Or would you say Hmmm, these things are worth noting?
“Imagine if a Tory London mayor was an ex lawyer known for defending the human rights of Nazis in court. Imagine if it was then revealed that his brother in law is a Nazi involved in far right causes”
How would you react to that? Honestly?
Would you leap to the defence of the Tory mayor and say it is just coincidence, the cab rank rule, no one can choose their family members, or would you actually say Hold on, let’s look at this more closely
I submit it would be the second and I am correct
For the purposes of clarity it may well be that Khan is entirely free of any sympathies to Islamist causes, I am willing to be persuaded on that - I am close to people that know him and they are fairly favourable. However, he does not get a free pass, no more than a Tory would with similar associations on “the right”0 -
£20 an hour - given that the new minimum wage means from April 1st it costs £15 an hour to employ someone - I would expect £25 to be the going rate for a self employed cleaner down south for anyone not utterly useless..Mexicanpete said:
The going rate for a s*** columnist and shock-jock hack is at least ten times that, and at the end of her hour the laundry still hasn't been donerottenborough said:Small violin time folks.
Oakeshott on the difficulties of getting the help out in the sticks.
"In my part of the Cotswolds, there is such a mismatch of supply and demand for domestic work that the going rate for a cleaner is at least £20 an hour."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/23/youd-be-a-fool-to-hire-anyone-to-work-for-you-in-britain/?li_source=LI&li_medium=for_you
Got to say I looked at that article yesterday and the stupidity of it drove me away within 10 seconds...
1 -
Because daubing someone's front door with offensive and disrespectful commentary shouldn't be protected by law. Is it criminal damage if a disrespectful note is carefully blutacked onto the door rather than a comment sprayed using a rattle can?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, I didn't say I wanted to disrespect someone's faith.
I said that doing so should be legally protected.
Why should a faith be legally protected from disrespect? Who determines what counts as disrespect? How could such a law be formulated that doesn't become a de facto blasphemy law?
I'll give you "dislike" and I'll certainly give you "question", but "disrespect"? No.0 -
Perhaps a few more migrants in the Cotswolds would alleviate these dreadful costs?OnlyLivingBoy said:
Nanotechnology hasn't advanced far enough to produce a violin of the required size.rottenborough said:Small violin time folks.
Oakeshott on the difficulties of getting the help out in the sticks.
"In my part of the Cotswolds, there is such a mismatch of supply and demand for domestic work that the going rate for a cleaner is at least £20 an hour."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/23/youd-be-a-fool-to-hire-anyone-to-work-for-you-in-britain/?li_source=LI&li_medium=for_you1 -
I haven’t mentioned Lee Anderson, nor referenced his remarks. Go checkNigelb said:
Other than your guilt by association, do you gave any evidence that he's "controlled by his Islamist mates" ?Leon said:
Except as a lawyer he strenuously defended IslamistsTimS said:
Saying Khan is controlled by Islamists “who are his mates” based on zero, nothing, other than his faith, is Islamophobia. Khan is dull. He’s not an Islamist.bondegezou said:
No-one appears to have suggested Lee Anderson be arrested! Just that maybe lying and inflaming tensions means he should lose the whip.Morris_Dancer said:Islamophobia remains a stupid term.
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.
And he has family links to extremist Muslims
“The links of mayoral hopeful Sadiq Khan’s former brother-in-law to one of the UK’s most notorious extremist organisations are revealed today.
Top London lawyer Makbool Javaid was married to the Labour Party candidate’s sister Farhat Khan until 2011.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exposed-sadiq-khans-family-links-to-extremist-organisation-a3179066.html
Imagine if a Tory London mayor was an ex lawyer known for defending the human rights of Nazis in court. Imagine if it was then revealed that his brother in law is a Nazi involved in far right causes
Would you just laugh that off? Accuse people of being racist for mentioning it? Or would you say Hmmm, these things are worth noting?
"Worth noting" is fairly contemptible parsing of Anderson's bigotry.0 -
People should be allowed to have their own opinion , but they should not be allowed to push it on other people or threaten them in the streets , stop people going about their business or commit real crimes about it. In this country it seems you can abuse anything except Islam and Islamists who can do and say what they like with impunity. Police standby scared to say boo and they are allowed to blockade any street, business, school etc they like. Unless that is just a media apparition it does seem a bit off, best not to be a Jew or Christian in Britain any longer. People can interpret that how they like.Mexicanpete said:...
The flip side to that notion can be applied to the Labour Party who conflate Benjamin Netanyahu's policy in Gaza with Luciana Berger.Morris_Dancer said:Islamophobia remains a stupid term.
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.
I believe any terms of reference for "disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea such as Islam" (or indeed Judaism or Christianity- and the various flavours thereof) should be carefully considered. Anyway, why would you want to "disrespect" anyone's faith? You may have already tied yourself up in knots there Morris.0 -
Jaiswal is still there though. He is currently averaging a somewhat obscene 76 after 8 matches. If England get him they may well go into the second innings less than 100 behind for the first time on this tour.Nigelb said:
Well played, sir.ydoethur said:
We'll have to talk cricket instead.TheScreamingEagles said:Blogging will be very light this weekend again, sorry.
England getting buggered by this annoying Jaiswal feller, again.0 -
.
Rules? From the Tories?nico679 said:The Tories shrinking base will like Anderson’s comments and I expect will also appeal to Reform.
Of course if this had been a Labour MP saying a mayor had been taken over by the Jewish lobby there would have been outrage and the right wing media would have gone into overdrive .
If you call out anti-Semitism but don’t call out Anderson’s comments then clearly the rules apply differently .1 -
I’m anti religion in general. You’re moaning over an issue which also seems to be evident in the anti -Semitism debate .Leon said:
No, it’s bollocksOnlyLivingBoy said:
He was a human rights lawyer and these were human rights cases and everyone, good and bad, needs legal representation. Come on Leon, you're a smart guy, you're better than this. Nobody who isn't a racist or a deeply partisan hack can imagine that Khan is an Islamist. Just substitute the word Jew for Muslim in Anderson's comments. He has crossed a line and needs to be sacked.Leon said:
Khan as a lawyer defended some really dodgy Muslim causes. He has admitted itOnlyLivingBoy said:
Quite, but Anderson's comments - attacking Khan simply because he is a Muslim - are very much in the former category.Morris_Dancer said:Islamophobia remains a stupid term.
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.
“Among those he has defended were Louis Farrakhan, the controversial leader of the Nation of Islam, when he tried unsuccessfully to visit the UK.
He also campaigned to prevent the extradition to the US of Babar Ahmed who later pleaded guilty to terrorist offences.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-i-represented-unsavoury-individuals-when-i-was-a-human-rights-lawyer-a3183266.html
Why did he choose those cases? And not others? These are legitimate questions
You are doing exactly what Chris Hitchens predicted in that video. Trying to shut down any criticism of Islam or Muslims by using the blanket term “Islamophobia” because it sounds like “racist” and no one wants to be thought of as a racist0 -
Have you seen the damage done by the far-right ULEZ bombers to this van?Leon said:
Answer my pointnico679 said:
Lawyers defend bad people shocker ! Who knew ! And now we’re onto someone who used to be married to Khan’s sister upto 2011.Leon said:
Except as a lawyer he strenuously defended IslamistsTimS said:
Saying Khan is controlled by Islamists “who are his mates” based on zero, nothing, other than his faith, is Islamophobia. Khan is dull. He’s not an Islamist.bondegezou said:
No-one appears to have suggested Lee Anderson be arrested! Just that maybe lying and inflaming tensions means he should lose the whip.Morris_Dancer said:Islamophobia remains a stupid term.
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.
And he has family links to extremist Muslims
“The links of mayoral hopeful Sadiq Khan’s former brother-in-law to one of the UK’s most notorious extremist organisations are revealed today.
Top London lawyer Makbool Javaid was married to the Labour Party candidate’s sister Farhat Khan until 2011.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exposed-sadiq-khans-family-links-to-extremist-organisation-a3179066.html
I magine if a Tory London mayor was an ex lawyer known for defending the human rights of Nazis in court. Imagine if it was then revealed that his brother in law is a Nazi involved in far right causes
Would you just laugh that off? Accuse people of being racist for mentioning it? Or would you say Hmmm, these things are worth noting?
“Imagine if a Tory London mayor was an ex lawyer known for defending the human rights of Nazis in court. Imagine if it was then revealed that his brother in law is a Nazi involved in far right causes”
How would you react to that? Honestly?
Would you leap to the defence of the Tory mayor and say it is just coincidence, the cab rank rule, no one can choose their family members, or would you actually say Hold on, let’s look at this more closely
I submit it would be the second and I am correct
For the purposes of clarity it may well be that Khan is entirely free of any sympathies to Islamist causes, I am willing to be persuaded on that - I am close to people that know him and they are fairly favourable. However, he does not get a free pass, no more than a Tory would with similar associations on “the right”
Could have killed someone, and all because they don't like Khan for some reason:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12836717/Mystery-ULEZ-camera-EXPLODES-street-cut-vigilantes-police-launch-probe.html0 -
Mr. Pete, the example you cite is property damage and already illegal.
I'd also repeat to you my questions from before, given you're still foursquare behind the notion of making disrespecting a religion contrary to the law.
Why should a faith be legally protected from disrespect? Who determines what counts as disrespect? How could such a law be formulated that doesn't become a de facto blasphemy law?0 -
Okay maybe you are neither a smart guy nor better than this, good to know.Leon said:
No, it’s bollocksOnlyLivingBoy said:
He was a human rights lawyer and these were human rights cases and everyone, good and bad, needs legal representation. Come on Leon, you're a smart guy, you're better than this. Nobody who isn't a racist or a deeply partisan hack can imagine that Khan is an Islamist. Just substitute the word Jew for Muslim in Anderson's comments. He has crossed a line and needs to be sacked.Leon said:
Khan as a lawyer defended some really dodgy Muslim causes. He has admitted itOnlyLivingBoy said:
Quite, but Anderson's comments - attacking Khan simply because he is a Muslim - are very much in the former category.Morris_Dancer said:Islamophobia remains a stupid term.
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.
“Among those he has defended were Louis Farrakhan, the controversial leader of the Nation of Islam, when he tried unsuccessfully to visit the UK.
He also campaigned to prevent the extradition to the US of Babar Ahmed who later pleaded guilty to terrorist offences.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-i-represented-unsavoury-individuals-when-i-was-a-human-rights-lawyer-a3183266.html
Why did he choose those cases? And not others? These are legitimate questions
You are doing exactly what Chris Hitchens predicted in that video. Trying to shut down any criticism of Islam or Muslims by using the blanket term “Islamophobia” because it sounds like “racist” and no one wants to be thought of as a racist1 -
That's horrible, and I hope they catch the gits who did it.Eabhal said:
Have you seen the damage done by the far-right ULEZ bombers to this van?Leon said:
Answer my pointnico679 said:
Lawyers defend bad people shocker ! Who knew ! And now we’re onto someone who used to be married to Khan’s sister upto 2011.Leon said:
Except as a lawyer he strenuously defended IslamistsTimS said:
Saying Khan is controlled by Islamists “who are his mates” based on zero, nothing, other than his faith, is Islamophobia. Khan is dull. He’s not an Islamist.bondegezou said:
No-one appears to have suggested Lee Anderson be arrested! Just that maybe lying and inflaming tensions means he should lose the whip.Morris_Dancer said:Islamophobia remains a stupid term.
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.
And he has family links to extremist Muslims
“The links of mayoral hopeful Sadiq Khan’s former brother-in-law to one of the UK’s most notorious extremist organisations are revealed today.
Top London lawyer Makbool Javaid was married to the Labour Party candidate’s sister Farhat Khan until 2011.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exposed-sadiq-khans-family-links-to-extremist-organisation-a3179066.html
I magine if a Tory London mayor was an ex lawyer known for defending the human rights of Nazis in court. Imagine if it was then revealed that his brother in law is a Nazi involved in far right causes
Would you just laugh that off? Accuse people of being racist for mentioning it? Or would you say Hmmm, these things are worth noting?
“Imagine if a Tory London mayor was an ex lawyer known for defending the human rights of Nazis in court. Imagine if it was then revealed that his brother in law is a Nazi involved in far right causes”
How would you react to that? Honestly?
Would you leap to the defence of the Tory mayor and say it is just coincidence, the cab rank rule, no one can choose their family members, or would you actually say Hold on, let’s look at this more closely
I submit it would be the second and I am correct
For the purposes of clarity it may well be that Khan is entirely free of any sympathies to Islamist causes, I am willing to be persuaded on that - I am close to people that know him and they are fairly favourable. However, he does not get a free pass, no more than a Tory would with similar associations on “the right”
Could have killed someone, and all because they don't like Khan for some reason:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12836717/Mystery-ULEZ-camera-EXPLODES-street-cut-vigilantes-police-launch-probe.html
However, I just cannot resist...
You Were Only Supposed To Blow The Bloody Doors Off!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_PX1cVuaVA2 -
Neither has Leon got this notion of the cab rank system for defence lawyers. His assumption is thus; if a Lawyer defends Lucy Letby they must approve of infanticide.TheScreamingEagles said:Up to 1992 the Tories had an MP whose brother was hanged for being a Nazi supporter.
Said Tory MP was a minister and also Harold MacMillan's son-in-law.
Obviously the Tories, SuperMac, and Thatcher were Nazis in Leon's head.0 -
Liz Truss is displaying an especially unpleasant attitude of entitlement and unwillingness to accept responsibility for her actions that is widespread through the highest levels of public life.Jonathan said:Anyone been enjoying Truss’ adventures in the US. When will the right get serious and stop her? Her ego trip and grievance is not helping them. A shrewd right wing would put her out to pasture.
And she really isn't doing the Conservatives any good.5 -
One of the main achievements of the Enlightenment was the rolling back of all blasphemy laws, allowing us not just to quietly dislike or disavow religious faith, but to mock it and scoff at it - ie to disrespect itMexicanpete said:
Because daubing someone's front door with offensive and disrespectful commentary shouldn't be protected by law. Is it criminal damage if a disrespectful note is carefully blutacked onto the door rather than a comment sprayed using a rattle can?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, I didn't say I wanted to disrespect someone's faith.
I said that doing so should be legally protected.
Why should a faith be legally protected from disrespect? Who determines what counts as disrespect? How could such a law be formulated that doesn't become a de facto blasphemy law?
I'll give you "dislike" and I'll certainly give you "question", but "disrespect"? No.
I believe the very last blasphemy laws were only repealed in the late 20th century, so this took CENTURIES of brave humans willing to stand up to religious nutters and risk the wrath of the church (as it was)
Now in a few short years we have gone right back to the 16th century and this time it is Islam which demands respect if not slavish submission, and there is a teacher from Baltey who is in hiding to prove this
It’s shameful and craven. We are a defeated, cowardly culture, as we saw in the Commons last week3 -
She isn't trying to do the Conservatives any good.another_richard said:And she really isn't doing the Conservatives any good.
It's a grift.
She learned from BoZo.2 -
Does anyone still do YouGov surveys ?
By my rough calculation its now paying way below minimum wage.0 -
As John Junor might have said when writing for The Telegraph's soulmate.....Mexicanpete said:
The going rate for a s*** columnist and shock-jock hack is at least ten times that, and at the end of her hour the laundry still hasn't been donerottenborough said:Small violin time folks.
Oakeshott on the difficulties of getting the help out in the sticks.
"In my part of the Cotswolds, there is such a mismatch of supply and demand for domestic work that the going rate for a cleaner is at least £20 an hour."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/23/youd-be-a-fool-to-hire-anyone-to-work-for-you-in-britain/?li_source=LI&li_medium=for_you
...........'Pass-the sick-bag Alice'1 -
do you still hiss at woman in burkhas?Leon said:
Except as a lawyer he strenuously defended IslamistsTimS said:
Saying Khan is controlled by Islamists “who are his mates” based on zero, nothing, other than his faith, is Islamophobia. Khan is dull. He’s not an Islamist.bondegezou said:
No-one appears to have suggested Lee Anderson be arrested! Just that maybe lying and inflaming tensions means he should lose the whip.Morris_Dancer said:Islamophobia remains a stupid term.
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.
And he has family links to extremist Muslims
“The links of mayoral hopeful Sadiq Khan’s former brother-in-law to one of the UK’s most notorious extremist organisations are revealed today.
Top London lawyer Makbool Javaid was married to the Labour Party candidate’s sister Farhat Khan until 2011.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exposed-sadiq-khans-family-links-to-extremist-organisation-a3179066.html
Imagine if a Tory London mayor was an ex lawyer known for defending the human rights of Nazis in court. Imagine if it was then revealed that his brother in law is a Nazi involved in far right causes
Would you just laugh that off? Accuse people of being racist for mentioning it? Or would you say Hmmm, these things are worth noting?1 -
Hang on - 'daub' does mean ' to paint'. *confused*Mexicanpete said:
Because daubing someone's front door with offensive and disrespectful commentary shouldn't be protected by law. Is it criminal damage if a disrespectful note is carefully blutacked onto the door rather than a comment sprayed using a rattle can?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, I didn't say I wanted to disrespect someone's faith.
I said that doing so should be legally protected.
Why should a faith be legally protected from disrespect? Who determines what counts as disrespect? How could such a law be formulated that doesn't become a de facto blasphemy law?
I'll give you "dislike" and I'll certainly give you "question", but "disrespect"? No.0 -
Dave Allen taking the piss out of the Pope does not strike me as disrespectful. Likewise everyone on here attributed Johnson's letter boxes commentary as satire and not disrespect. Nailing a bacon sandwich to the Chief Rabbi's front door is disrespectful.Leon said:
One of the main achievements of the Enlightenment was the rolling back of all blasphemy laws, allowing us not just to quietly dislike or disavow religious faith, but to mock it and scoff at it - ie to disrespect itMexicanpete said:
Because daubing someone's front door with offensive and disrespectful commentary shouldn't be protected by law. Is it criminal damage if a disrespectful note is carefully blutacked onto the door rather than a comment sprayed using a rattle can?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, I didn't say I wanted to disrespect someone's faith.
I said that doing so should be legally protected.
Why should a faith be legally protected from disrespect? Who determines what counts as disrespect? How could such a law be formulated that doesn't become a de facto blasphemy law?
I'll give you "dislike" and I'll certainly give you "question", but "disrespect"? No.
I believe the very last blasphemy laws were only repealed in the late 20th century, so this took CENTURIES of brave humans willing to stand up to religious nutters and risk the wrath of the church (as it was)
Now in a few short years we have gone right back to the 16th century and this time it is Islam which demands respect if not slavish submission, and there is a teacher from Baltey who is in hiding to prove this
It’s shameful and craven. We are a defeated, cowardly culture, as we saw in the Commons last week0 -
My wife earns at least £50 a year doing them. What are you moaning about?another_richard said:Does anyone still do YouGov surveys ?
By my rough calculation its now paying way below minimum wage.0 -
I realised late on the criminal damage defence which is why I added the blutacked note point.Carnyx said:
Hang on - 'daub' does mean ' to paint'. *confused*Mexicanpete said:
Because daubing someone's front door with offensive and disrespectful commentary shouldn't be protected by law. Is it criminal damage if a disrespectful note is carefully blutacked onto the door rather than a comment sprayed using a rattle can?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, I didn't say I wanted to disrespect someone's faith.
I said that doing so should be legally protected.
Why should a faith be legally protected from disrespect? Who determines what counts as disrespect? How could such a law be formulated that doesn't become a de facto blasphemy law?
I'll give you "dislike" and I'll certainly give you "question", but "disrespect"? No.
See Morris's rebuttal down thread.1 -
Well if they're grifting from idiot Americans then that's money which wont be going to the Trump family.Scott_xP said:
She isn't trying to do the Conservatives any good.another_richard said:And she really isn't doing the Conservatives any good.
It's a grift.
She learned from BoZo.0 -
I would happily do surveys for free if they were just of political matters without having to wade through pages of guff asking what I think of different dishwasher brands*. I gave up YouGov years ago for that reason.DavidL said:
My wife earns at least £50 a year doing them. What are you moaning about?another_richard said:Does anyone still do YouGov surveys ?
By my rough calculation its now paying way below minimum wage.
(*Yes I appreciate that’s the whole point of polling companies’ business model).4 -
What about a cartoon of the Prophet making him look like a bomb? Should that be allowed?Mexicanpete said:
Dave Allen taking the piss out of the Pope does not strike me as disrespectful. Likewise everyone on here attributed Johnson's letter boxes commentary as satire and not disrespect. Nailing a bacon sandwich to the Chief Rabbi's front door is disrespectful.Leon said:
One of the main achievements of the Enlightenment was the rolling back of all blasphemy laws, allowing us not just to quietly dislike or disavow religious faith, but to mock it and scoff at it - ie to disrespect itMexicanpete said:
Because daubing someone's front door with offensive and disrespectful commentary shouldn't be protected by law. Is it criminal damage if a disrespectful note is carefully blutacked onto the door rather than a comment sprayed using a rattle can?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, I didn't say I wanted to disrespect someone's faith.
I said that doing so should be legally protected.
Why should a faith be legally protected from disrespect? Who determines what counts as disrespect? How could such a law be formulated that doesn't become a de facto blasphemy law?
I'll give you "dislike" and I'll certainly give you "question", but "disrespect"? No.
I believe the very last blasphemy laws were only repealed in the late 20th century, so this took CENTURIES of brave humans willing to stand up to religious nutters and risk the wrath of the church (as it was)
Now in a few short years we have gone right back to the 16th century and this time it is Islam which demands respect if not slavish submission, and there is a teacher from Baltey who is in hiding to prove this
It’s shameful and craven. We are a defeated, cowardly culture, as we saw in the Commons last week0 -
Too much time on her hands David, get her polishing those candlesticksDavidL said:
My wife earns at least £50 a year doing them. What are you moaning about?another_richard said:Does anyone still do YouGov surveys ?
By my rough calculation its now paying way below minimum wage.0 -
Ok, PB, quick question, linked to issues with British Gas:
Is there a legal term for issuing a false bill, knowing it is a false bill, with the intention of getting payment for goods not delivered as a result?0 -
Mony a mickle mak's a muckle Malcolm. Us Scots should appreciate that.malcolmg said:
Too much time on her hands David, get her polishing those candlesticksDavidL said:
My wife earns at least £50 a year doing them. What are you moaning about?another_richard said:Does anyone still do YouGov surveys ?
By my rough calculation its now paying way below minimum wage.1 -
There does seem to be a “circuit”, and leaving aside the zany politics it strikes me as a pretty decent career choice.another_richard said:
Well if they're grifting from idiot Americans then that's money which wont be going to the Trump family.Scott_xP said:
She isn't trying to do the Conservatives any good.another_richard said:And she really isn't doing the Conservatives any good.
It's a grift.
She learned from BoZo.
There’s not the same on the far left - well there’s a circuit, but little or no money to go round unless you’re a journalist.
The other ideological circuits that pay the bills are what could roughly be described as the “globalist Davos geopolitics” one epitomised by Blair, Eurasia group etc, the adjacent global markets one of El Erian, Carney et al, the more right wing cryptocurrency libertarian lot, and of course the big religious speaker circuits.
0 -
I wouldn't pay Oakeshott to clean my house.noneoftheabove said:
At what rate would she be willing to clean the homes of other people and travel to get there?rottenborough said:Small violin time folks.
Oakeshott on the difficulties of getting the help out in the sticks.
"In my part of the Cotswolds, there is such a mismatch of supply and demand for domestic work that the going rate for a cleaner is at least £20 an hour."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/23/youd-be-a-fool-to-hire-anyone-to-work-for-you-in-britain/?li_source=LI&li_medium=for_you
For me I'd start to get interested at around £100 per hour. I doubt she would be less.
Given she spews toxic shit everywhere, it would end up much dirtier.4 -
Of course it should.Leon said:
What about a cartoon of the Prophet making him look like a bomb? Should that be allowed?Mexicanpete said:
Dave Allen taking the piss out of the Pope does not strike me as disrespectful. Likewise everyone on here attributed Johnson's letter boxes commentary as satire and not disrespect. Nailing a bacon sandwich to the Chief Rabbi's front door is disrespectful.Leon said:
One of the main achievements of the Enlightenment was the rolling back of all blasphemy laws, allowing us not just to quietly dislike or disavow religious faith, but to mock it and scoff at it - ie to disrespect itMexicanpete said:
Because daubing someone's front door with offensive and disrespectful commentary shouldn't be protected by law. Is it criminal damage if a disrespectful note is carefully blutacked onto the door rather than a comment sprayed using a rattle can?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, I didn't say I wanted to disrespect someone's faith.
I said that doing so should be legally protected.
Why should a faith be legally protected from disrespect? Who determines what counts as disrespect? How could such a law be formulated that doesn't become a de facto blasphemy law?
I'll give you "dislike" and I'll certainly give you "question", but "disrespect"? No.
I believe the very last blasphemy laws were only repealed in the late 20th century, so this took CENTURIES of brave humans willing to stand up to religious nutters and risk the wrath of the church (as it was)
Now in a few short years we have gone right back to the 16th century and this time it is Islam which demands respect if not slavish submission, and there is a teacher from Baltey who is in hiding to prove this
It’s shameful and craven. We are a defeated, cowardly culture, as we saw in the Commons last week
Is it respectful? No, but that’s a different question.1 -
If it is done with criminal intent then it is uttering a false document, which is a category of fraud. But if it is just complete incompetence then there is no criminal intent and being British Gas may give them a fairly unimpeachable defence in that respect.ydoethur said:Ok, PB, quick question, linked to issues with British Gas:
Is there a legal term for issuing a false bill, knowing it is a false bill, with the intention of getting payment for goods not delivered as a result?5 -
Perhaps the cleaners have a stupid desire to afford a place to live? In the Cotswolds, house prices have soared to hilarious levels, due to hardcore NIMBY/“Green” no-development pushes.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Nanotechnology hasn't advanced far enough to produce a violin of the required size.rottenborough said:Small violin time folks.
Oakeshott on the difficulties of getting the help out in the sticks.
"In my part of the Cotswolds, there is such a mismatch of supply and demand for domestic work that the going rate for a cleaner is at least £20 an hour."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/23/youd-be-a-fool-to-hire-anyone-to-work-for-you-in-britain/?li_source=LI&li_medium=for_you2 -
Fee by procedure does up intervention rates in medicine even if not in dentistry. Whether this is good or bad is perhaps uncertain.Dura_Ace said:
Over-treating is relatively rare according to Mrs DA. Frankly, most practices don't need to and they would rather do more simple procedures on different patients than more procedures on a single patient where there is a greater chance of complications.FF43 said:<
Like car MOTs you want dentists to find and fix what's necessary but not more than necessary.
However you get the impression the amount they fix is only slightly related to the state of your teeth.
The usual bent car business fiddle is charging for work that was NEVER done, not charging for unnecessary work. Put a dab of paint on your sump plug the next time your car goes for a service see how often dealers actually change the oil compared to how often they charge for it.0 -
It all depends on whether the cartoon was designed for satirical purposes or to inflame tensionsLeon said:
What about a cartoon of the Prophet making him look like a bomb? Should that be allowed?Mexicanpete said:
Dave Allen taking the piss out of the Pope does not strike me as disrespectful. Likewise everyone on here attributed Johnson's letter boxes commentary as satire and not disrespect. Nailing a bacon sandwich to the Chief Rabbi's front door is disrespectful.Leon said:
One of the main achievements of the Enlightenment was the rolling back of all blasphemy laws, allowing us not just to quietly dislike or disavow religious faith, but to mock it and scoff at it - ie to disrespect itMexicanpete said:
Because daubing someone's front door with offensive and disrespectful commentary shouldn't be protected by law. Is it criminal damage if a disrespectful note is carefully blutacked onto the door rather than a comment sprayed using a rattle can?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, I didn't say I wanted to disrespect someone's faith.
I said that doing so should be legally protected.
Why should a faith be legally protected from disrespect? Who determines what counts as disrespect? How could such a law be formulated that doesn't become a de facto blasphemy law?
I'll give you "dislike" and I'll certainly give you "question", but "disrespect"? No.
I believe the very last blasphemy laws were only repealed in the late 20th century, so this took CENTURIES of brave humans willing to stand up to religious nutters and risk the wrath of the church (as it was)
Now in a few short years we have gone right back to the 16th century and this time it is Islam which demands respect if not slavish submission, and there is a teacher from Baltey who is in hiding to prove this
It’s shameful and craven. We are a defeated, cowardly culture, as we saw in the Commons last week
How do you feel about Orangemen marching through the Bogside? They would say they have every right to march wherever they want. Guidance now suggests otherwise.0 -
Good morning
Scottish polling will be interesting post last week and it was also interesting just how well the conservatives did in Jedburgh taking a seat off the SNP
However, catching up on this and the last thread, the increasingly divisive nature of our politics is very troubling and is being influenced by the middle east conflict
Both antisemitism and islamaphobia are wrong but the activities in and outside Westminster this week have shamed everyone and I really do fear that the next election may well be dominated by this division with untold consequences
The genie seems to be out of the bottle and there seems no way to put him back
Very worrying and troubling days0 -
They've now done it six times across four different accounts.DavidL said:
If it is done with criminal intent then it is uttering a false document, which is a category of fraud. But if it is just complete incompetence then there is no criminal intent and being British Gas may give them a fairly unimpeachable defence in that respect.ydoethur said:Ok, PB, quick question, linked to issues with British Gas:
Is there a legal term for issuing a false bill, knowing it is a false bill, with the intention of getting payment for goods not delivered as a result?
Every single time I try to close an account, they put the wrong figure on the final bill.
And not trivially, either. The errors if I had not challenged them total many thousands (as in, over three). They still haven't admitted one of them while doubling down on it. (Edit - and they know full well that bill is false.)
I am no longer willing to accept incompetence as a defence. If they are this incompetent as far as I am concerned they are still guilty of fraud.
Thanks for the tip.1 -
Is that a euphemism?malcolmg said:
Too much time on her hands David, get her polishing those candlesticksDavidL said:
My wife earns at least £50 a year doing them. What are you moaning about?another_richard said:Does anyone still do YouGov surveys ?
By my rough calculation its now paying way below minimum wage.1 -
Like i said, craven cowardiceMexicanpete said:
It all depends on whether the cartoon was designed for satirical purposes or to inflame tensionsLeon said:
What about a cartoon of the Prophet making him look like a bomb? Should that be allowed?Mexicanpete said:
Dave Allen taking the piss out of the Pope does not strike me as disrespectful. Likewise everyone on here attributed Johnson's letter boxes commentary as satire and not disrespect. Nailing a bacon sandwich to the Chief Rabbi's front door is disrespectful.Leon said:
One of the main achievements of the Enlightenment was the rolling back of all blasphemy laws, allowing us not just to quietly dislike or disavow religious faith, but to mock it and scoff at it - ie to disrespect itMexicanpete said:
Because daubing someone's front door with offensive and disrespectful commentary shouldn't be protected by law. Is it criminal damage if a disrespectful note is carefully blutacked onto the door rather than a comment sprayed using a rattle can?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, I didn't say I wanted to disrespect someone's faith.
I said that doing so should be legally protected.
Why should a faith be legally protected from disrespect? Who determines what counts as disrespect? How could such a law be formulated that doesn't become a de facto blasphemy law?
I'll give you "dislike" and I'll certainly give you "question", but "disrespect"? No.
I believe the very last blasphemy laws were only repealed in the late 20th century, so this took CENTURIES of brave humans willing to stand up to religious nutters and risk the wrath of the church (as it was)
Now in a few short years we have gone right back to the 16th century and this time it is Islam which demands respect if not slavish submission, and there is a teacher from Baltey who is in hiding to prove this
It’s shameful and craven. We are a defeated, cowardly culture, as we saw in the Commons last week
How do you feel about Orangemen marching through the Bogside? They would say they have every right to march wherever they want. Guidance now suggests otherwise.0 -
Didn't really take it off the SNP - you're implicitly comparing an IIRC third on the slate seat with a first on the slate, so seats alone isn't enough. We needf to drill down deeper, but Ballot Box Scotland hasn't yet reported - I've just looked.Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
Scottish polling will be interesting post last week and it was also interesting just how well the conservatives did in Jedburgh taking a seat off the SNP
However, catching up on this and the last thread, the increasingly divisive nature of our politics is very troubling and is being influenced by the middle east conflict
Both antisemitism and islamaphobia are wrong but the activities in and outside Westminster this week have shamed everyone and I really do fear that the next election may well be dominated by this division with untold consequences
The genie seems to be out of the bottle and there seems no way to put him back
Very worrying and troubling days0 -
Christopher Hitchins might be your hero, but actually you are revealing yourself as being even more reactionary than his bovine brother, Peter. Also Hitchins, C would have engaged with the argument, which you are signally failing to do with this chaotic morass of disjointed whataboutism.Leon said:
No, it’s bollocksOnlyLivingBoy said:
He was a human rights lawyer and these were human rights cases and everyone, good and bad, needs legal representation. Come on Leon, you're a smart guy, you're better than this. Nobody who isn't a racist or a deeply partisan hack can imagine that Khan is an Islamist. Just substitute the word Jew for Muslim in Anderson's comments. He has crossed a line and needs to be sacked.Leon said:
Khan as a lawyer defended some really dodgy Muslim causes. He has admitted itOnlyLivingBoy said:
Quite, but Anderson's comments - attacking Khan simply because he is a Muslim - are very much in the former category.Morris_Dancer said:Islamophobia remains a stupid term.
Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.
“Among those he has defended were Louis Farrakhan, the controversial leader of the Nation of Islam, when he tried unsuccessfully to visit the UK.
He also campaigned to prevent the extradition to the US of Babar Ahmed who later pleaded guilty to terrorist offences.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-i-represented-unsavoury-individuals-when-i-was-a-human-rights-lawyer-a3183266.html
Why did he choose those cases? And not others? These are legitimate questions
You are doing exactly what Chris Hitchens predicted in that video. Trying to shut down any criticism of Islam or Muslims by using the blanket term “Islamophobia” because it sounds like “racist” and no one wants to be thought of as a racist
Even by your standards you are being a intellectually disorganised blowhard this morning. Go and have a lie down.2 -
Worth noting a few things about Lee Anderson's comments:-
1. The suggestion that Khan is an Islamist or somehow in league with those organising the demos in London is absurd. There is no evidence of this. Anderson's basis for doing this is simply that Khan is a Muslim which is simple bigotry.
2. Worth noting that if you were to substitute the word "Jew" for "Muslim" in what he has been saying you'd get pretty close to some of the things that have been said online, in public by some of the attendees at the marches and on posters at the marches - the same suggestions of Jewish conspiracies/ control / being Nazis / even on one occasion a poster of a Jewish baby drinking Palestinian blood. This is pretty offensive, untrue and hateful. If we condemn one, we should be condemning the other. It is not either/or. Some people do however have difficulty doing this. They feel it necessary to turn a blind eye to what "their" side says.
3. The recent ET case involving a former lecturer at Bristol University, David Miller, said that his anti-Zionist views were protected as a "belief" under the Equality Act. What he says is pretty unpleasant but free speech is freedom to say unpleasant and offensive things. That does not simply apply to anti-Zionists. You could have a belief that tribal nationalism (eg being in favour of a Palestinian state) is as appalling as having a Jewish state and that too would, using the same legal arguments, be protected.
4. The better criticism should be aimed at the Met. There is a lot of talk about "hate" crimes, public order, not wanting to put vulnerable and marginalised communities in fear and, yet, it is indisputable that there has been a very significant rise in attacks on Jews and that many have found the endless marches frightening. But there has been little regard for this. For Jews to feel unsafe in the capital city of their home country in 2024 is pretty shocking. It does not reflect well on us as a country.
5. The cab rank rule does not apply to solicitors but only to the Bar. But attacking defence lawyers for doing their job is wrong. Doing their job does not mean they share the views of their clients.
7. Finally this from today's Times - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/big-ben-palestinian-projection-protest-london-parliament-mps-phps73nld - is worth reading. There is, to my mind, an echo of the sort of intimidation by numbers we have seen in the US. The disregard for its effects on others, the possibility that scaring others - not simply MPs - is part of the point is very worrying.
4 -
Jasiwal still there. While he's there, India still favourites for a first innings lead.0
