Unless they wish to arrest you on suspicion of a crime, do you not have a fundamental right to tell the police to piss off if they come to your door, just like you do anyone else?
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.
I believe it's called "ethnic cleansing". FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY AND NOT GETTING BANNED, I AM NOT ESPOUSING IT, merely stating the facts
Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route
It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades
You are, of course, absolutely correct. That picturesque vision 'From the river to the sea' would be replaced by "What do we want? Ethnic Cleansing. When do we want it? 1948".
Yep. The Nakba was absolutely classic ethnic cleansing, and done with real violence. And, if you're an Israeli Jew, it "worked"
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.
I believe it's called "ethnic cleansing". FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY AND NOT GETTING BANNED, I AM NOT ESPOUSING IT, merely stating the facts
Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route
It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.
I believe it's called "ethnic cleansing". FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY AND NOT GETTING BANNED, I AM NOT ESPOUSING IT, merely stating the facts
Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route
It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades
Until very recently, ethnic cleansing (so long as it was not accompanied by excessive violence), was viewed as statesmanship, rather than a crime.
Unwanted populations just had to leave, so as to ensure the stability of the State. It happened all over Eastern Europe, after 1945.
As the world reverts to older political ethics, I expect we’ll see that again.
The Chinese are creating “Facts on the ground” in Tibet. Right now.
And with the Muslim Uighurs. They are Sinifying and eradicating their culture and religion. Soon enough the Uighurs will likely be absorbed into the greater Han ethnicity. China is not gonna tolerate what it has witnessed in the west: a potentially hostile Muslim minority
That said, China has NOT successfully erased Tibetan identity, I've been there and it lives on quite vividly
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
Has Pearson apologised for labelling people "jew haters", apparently for the crime of having their photo taken while brown?
Citation required
???? Not sure what you are after seeing as that is the whole story. Having made the mistake of identifying some Pakistani persons as Jew haters she deleted the post having misidentified them. Are you claiming this part is untrue? You don't need a citation as you can easily look it up for yourself.
I have seen no proof of anything from anyone in this debate, not Pearson not the Telegraph, not the Guardian not Essex Police. So I am genuinely in the dark. We are not even sure - AFAICS - what is the offending tweet and who tweeted it?
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.
I believe it's called "ethnic cleansing". FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY AND NOT GETTING BANNED, I AM NOT ESPOUSING IT, merely stating the facts
Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route
It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades
Mr. Malmesbury, China's also making moves in Bhutan. They have a series of border disputes with India, and Bhutan is strategically located.
Apparently, what they are doing in Tibet is in a reaction to what they saw happen in the Baltics at the end of the Soviet Union.
Stalins plans to overwhelm the local populations with ethnic Russians were not fully carried out.
The Chinese intent is not to make that mistake. IIRC they are aiming for a population 80% Han Chinese. At minimum.
Yes, it's surprising, really, that Stalin did not create an overwhelming Russian majority, in those States, if necessary, by deporting most of the locals. He didn't usually leave loose ends.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.
I believe it's called "ethnic cleansing". FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY AND NOT GETTING BANNED, I AM NOT ESPOUSING IT, merely stating the facts
Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route
It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades
Carry on like that and you'll be banned for EXCESSIVE USE OF CAPITALS ;-)
London, Seoul, Manila, Yerevan, Tbilisi, Paris…
Back in London now. My journey from Sirgao island to Heathrow took 28 fucking hours. EEEEEK
And when I arrived at LHR at 6.40 this morning I was greeted with the news that Sadiq Khan has suspended all Heathrow Express and Liz Line services for the weekend
So a £100 taxi it was
Still, it's nice to be home. I have unwrapped my souvenirs and they all look very fancy in my kitchen
Unless they wish to arrest you on suspicion of a crime, do you not have a fundamental right to tell the police to piss off if they come to your door, just like you do anyone else?
No. Quick summary from Google AI of a bit of it.
Police can enter to investigate a crime on the spot.
Or for "close pursuit" if they believe a suspect is there.
Or if they believe a serious crime has been committed.
And from me: There are also "welfare checks", if they believe someone may be is in distress or need of help inside eg if someone reported "I haven't seen my diabetic neighbour for 2 days, and the lights were on all night. I'm worried.". This bubbles up sometimes in the landlord forums - where some police forces will refuse to pay for replacing a door they smashed down if they think they had good reason for forcing entry to a property for a welfare check or eg in belief that it was a cannabis growing site. They usually pay if they have broken into the wrong house, which is not unknown.
Plus there are lots of weird and wonderful laws which have powers of entry to all kinds of people, and police may accompany. There was some activism on this a few years ago, and there were hundreds of them. A Government Review around 2013 reduced these powers of entry from 1237 to 912.
Ministers of each department laid their final reports in Parliament on 27 November 2014 which showed that a total of 1,237 powers of entry had been subject to review. Government agreed a significant reduction in the overall number of powers at that time, reducing the total to 912. Government also ensured that, where necessary, remaining powers had sufficient additional safeguards (added via legislation) to ensure appropriate use of the powers in future. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/powers-of-entry
Mr. Malmesbury, China's also making moves in Bhutan. They have a series of border disputes with India, and Bhutan is strategically located.
Apparently, what they are doing in Tibet is in a reaction to what they saw happen in the Baltics at the end of the Soviet Union.
Stalins plans to overwhelm the local populations with ethnic Russians were not fully carried out.
The Chinese intent is not to make that mistake. IIRC they are aiming for a population 80% Han Chinese. At minimum.
Yes, it's surprising, really, that Stalin did not create an overwhelming Russian majority, in those States, if necessary, by deporting most of the locals. He didn't usually leave loose ends.
He was interrupted by a slight case of death. The plans were made and started.
See Kaliningrad, for an example of the finished product.
If some sources are to be believed he was looking at mass deporting the non-Russian population of Ukraine.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.
I believe it's called "ethnic cleansing". FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY AND NOT GETTING BANNED, I AM NOT ESPOUSING IT, merely stating the facts
Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route
It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades
Until very recently, ethnic cleansing (so long as it was not accompanied by excessive violence), was viewed as statesmanship, rather than a crime.
Unwanted populations just had to leave, so as to ensure the stability of the State. It happened all over Eastern Europe, after 1945.
As the world reverts to older political ethics, I expect we’ll see that again.
Yes yes and yes. I expect we are going to see similar things once more, and it will not be pretty
I think it was Raphael Lemkin, who invented the term "genocide", who recalled a conversation with a prominent jurist at the time, who said in opposition, that if you were getting rid of an unwanted colony of rabbits on your own land, and some third party interfered, that third party was a trespasser.
Mr. Malmesbury, China's also making moves in Bhutan. They have a series of border disputes with India, and Bhutan is strategically located.
Apparently, what they are doing in Tibet is in a reaction to what they saw happen in the Baltics at the end of the Soviet Union.
Stalins plans to overwhelm the local populations with ethnic Russians were not fully carried out.
The Chinese intent is not to make that mistake. IIRC they are aiming for a population 80% Han Chinese. At minimum.
Yes, it's surprising, really, that Stalin did not create an overwhelming Russian majority, in those States, if necessary, by deporting most of the locals. He didn't usually leave loose ends.
It was easier for Stalin, however, as he had a booming ethnic Russian population
Xi Jinping's China has a birthrate of exactly 1 per woman, the one child policy has come horribly true in the most ironic way, leading to an imminent demographic crisis. China maybe does not HAVE enough Han Chinese to flood Tibet
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.
I believe it's called "ethnic cleansing". FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY AND NOT GETTING BANNED, I AM NOT ESPOUSING IT, merely stating the facts
Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route
It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades
Carry on like that and you'll be banned for EXCESSIVE USE OF CAPITALS ;-)
London, Seoul, Manila, Yerevan, Tbilisi, Paris…
Back in London now. My journey from Sirgao island to Heathrow took 28 fucking hours. EEEEEK
And when I arrived at LHR at 6.40 this morning I was greeted with the news that Sadiq Khan has suspended all Heathrow Express and Liz Line services for the weekend
So a £100 taxi it was
Still, it's nice to be home. I have unwrapped my souvenirs and they all look very fancy in my kitchen
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.
I believe it's called "ethnic cleansing". FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY AND NOT GETTING BANNED, I AM NOT ESPOUSING IT, merely stating the facts
Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route
It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades
Carry on like that and you'll be banned for EXCESSIVE USE OF CAPITALS ;-)
London, Seoul, Manila, Yerevan, Tbilisi, Paris…
Back in London now. My journey from Sirgao island to Heathrow took 28 fucking hours. EEEEEK
And when I arrived at LHR at 6.40 this morning I was greeted with the news that Sadiq Khan has suspended all Heathrow Express and Liz Line services for the weekend
So a £100 taxi it was
Still, it's nice to be home. I have unwrapped my souvenirs and they all look very fancy in my kitchen
Too proud for the Picaddily line?
I just can't bear that procession of null places. Hounslow. Hounslow Central. Osterley, Northfields. Where and what the fuck is "Northfields"
After my glorious procession around Japan, Korea and the Pihilippines a slow Tube through "Northfields" would have been bathetic and intolerable. So I caught a fast black and as it was so early it was indeed fast. And pricey. Fuck it. I haven't spent a penny of my own money for weeks
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
The 1977 election manifesto of the right-wing Israeli Likud party said: "Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." Was that invoking racial hatred against the Palestinian people?
The answer to both questions is NO. They are both voicing an aspiration.
Likud called for Israeli *sovereignty* from the river to the sea
Hamas called for the liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea. Elsewhere they said that Jews should not be allowed to live in a free Palestine.
In the most generous interpretation Hamas is calling for ethnic cleansing. Likud was not.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.
I believe it's called "ethnic cleansing". FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY AND NOT GETTING BANNED, I AM NOT ESPOUSING IT, merely stating the facts
Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route
It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades
Carry on like that and you'll be banned for EXCESSIVE USE OF CAPITALS ;-)
London, Seoul, Manila, Yerevan, Tbilisi, Paris…
Back in London now. My journey from Sirgao island to Heathrow took 28 fucking hours. EEEEEK
And when I arrived at LHR at 6.40 this morning I was greeted with the news that Sadiq Khan has suspended all Heathrow Express and Liz Line services for the weekend
So a £100 taxi it was
Still, it's nice to be home. I have unwrapped my souvenirs and they all look very fancy in my kitchen
Too proud for the Picaddily line?
I just can't bear that procession of null places. Hounslow. Hounslow Central. Osterley, Northfields. Where and what the fuck is "Northfields"
After my glorious procession around Japan, Korea and the Pihilippines a slow Tube through "Northfields" would have been bathetic and intolerable. So I caught a fast black and as it was so early it was indeed fast. And pricey. Fuck it. I haven't spent a penny of my own money for weeks
Perhaps you should grit your teeth and do a travelogue of those places.
Mr. Leon, the declining Chinese population is also unhelpful in the context of a market flooded with houses. They already have more housing than they need. The population could be just 400m by 2100 (or 800m, but still a lot lower than now).
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.
I believe it's called "ethnic cleansing". FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY AND NOT GETTING BANNED, I AM NOT ESPOUSING IT, merely stating the facts
Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route
It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades
Carry on like that and you'll be banned for EXCESSIVE USE OF CAPITALS ;-)
London, Seoul, Manila, Yerevan, Tbilisi, Paris…
Back in London now. My journey from Sirgao island to Heathrow took 28 fucking hours. EEEEEK
And when I arrived at LHR at 6.40 this morning I was greeted with the news that Sadiq Khan has suspended all Heathrow Express and Liz Line services for the weekend
So a £100 taxi it was
Still, it's nice to be home. I have unwrapped my souvenirs and they all look very fancy in my kitchen
Too proud for the Picaddily line?
I just can't bear that procession of null places. Hounslow. Hounslow Central. Osterley, Northfields. Where and what the fuck is "Northfields"
After my glorious procession around Japan, Korea and the Pihilippines a slow Tube through "Northfields" would have been bathetic and intolerable. So I caught a fast black and as it was so early it was indeed fast. And pricey. Fuck it. I haven't spent a penny of my own money for weeks
Perhaps you should grit your teeth and do a travelogue of those places.
Mr. Malmesbury, China's also making moves in Bhutan. They have a series of border disputes with India, and Bhutan is strategically located.
Apparently, what they are doing in Tibet is in a reaction to what they saw happen in the Baltics at the end of the Soviet Union.
Stalins plans to overwhelm the local populations with ethnic Russians were not fully carried out.
The Chinese intent is not to make that mistake. IIRC they are aiming for a population 80% Han Chinese. At minimum.
Yes, it's surprising, really, that Stalin did not create an overwhelming Russian majority, in those States, if necessary, by deporting most of the locals. He didn't usually leave loose ends.
He was interrupted by a slight case of death. The plans were made and started.
See Kaliningrad, for an example of the finished product.
If some sources are to be believed he was looking at mass deporting the non-Russian population of Ukraine.
Happened of course in parts of Ukraine. E.g. Crimea. Although whether that was really ever actually 'Ukrainian' is, AIUI, questionable.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.
I believe it's called "ethnic cleansing". FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY AND NOT GETTING BANNED, I AM NOT ESPOUSING IT, merely stating the facts
Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route
It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades
Carry on like that and you'll be banned for EXCESSIVE USE OF CAPITALS ;-)
London, Seoul, Manila, Yerevan, Tbilisi, Paris…
Back in London now. My journey from Sirgao island to Heathrow took 28 fucking hours. EEEEEK
And when I arrived at LHR at 6.40 this morning I was greeted with the news that Sadiq Khan has suspended all Heathrow Express and Liz Line services for the weekend
So a £100 taxi it was
Still, it's nice to be home. I have unwrapped my souvenirs and they all look very fancy in my kitchen
Too proud for the Picaddily line?
I just can't bear that procession of null places. Hounslow. Hounslow Central. Osterley, Northfields. Where and what the fuck is "Northfields"
After my glorious procession around Japan, Korea and the Pihilippines a slow Tube through "Northfields" would have been bathetic and intolerable. So I caught a fast black and as it was so early it was indeed fast. And pricey. Fuck it. I haven't spent a penny of my own money for weeks
Perhaps you should grit your teeth and do a travelogue of those places.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.
I believe it's called "ethnic cleansing". FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY AND NOT GETTING BANNED, I AM NOT ESPOUSING IT, merely stating the facts
Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route
It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades
Carry on like that and you'll be banned for EXCESSIVE USE OF CAPITALS ;-)
London, Seoul, Manila, Yerevan, Tbilisi, Paris…
Back in London now. My journey from Sirgao island to Heathrow took 28 fucking hours. EEEEEK
And when I arrived at LHR at 6.40 this morning I was greeted with the news that Sadiq Khan has suspended all Heathrow Express and Liz Line services for the weekend
So a £100 taxi it was
Still, it's nice to be home. I have unwrapped my souvenirs and they all look very fancy in my kitchen
Too proud for the Picaddily line?
I just can't bear that procession of null places. Hounslow. Hounslow Central. Osterley, Northfields. Where and what the fuck is "Northfields"
After my glorious procession around Japan, Korea and the Pihilippines a slow Tube through "Northfields" would have been bathetic and intolerable. So I caught a fast black and as it was so early it was indeed fast. And pricey. Fuck it. I haven't spent a penny of my own money for weeks
Perhaps you should grit your teeth and do a travelogue of those places.
If the police come to your door talking about a non-crime hate incident you politely tell them that since they have told you it is a non-crime you have no obligation to talk to them. If they wish to write to you then they are free to do so, you will pass the letter onto your solicitor who will reply.
Unless they wish to arrest you on suspicion of a crime, do you not have a fundamental right to tell the police to piss off if they come to your door, just like you do anyone else?
Unless they have a warrant, yes.
This is the bit that confuses about all these new concepts like “non-crime hate incidents”. The principle used to be simple: don’t be impolite, but absent the suspicion of a crime you could just refuse to engage with the police, and and if they persist then you ask them for name, shoulder number, station, and under what powers they are are stopping/disturbing you, and if at home whether they have a warrant.
However these odd new categories seem to break that down. The guidance around NCHIs is written as if the subject is being informed because (and only because) their personal data is being processed within the meaning of GDPR. However it seems like this process often presents as the police confronting someone over their behaviour. It’s all a bit off.
Might be easiest to just have a GDPR carve out, never tell anyone they are mentioned in an NCHI, ensure they can’t affect employment or be declared in court, and move on. Those that want to count them are happy, the police can use them as a soft form of intelligence if they want to (clogging up their systems and not adding very much), and they will have no impact on anyone’s life.
King Cole, but weren't there Tartars rather than Russians there?
Yes. The deportations were phase one of what Stalin wanted for West of the Urals.
The irony of all this is that Stalin was not, of course, ethnically Russian, far from it
He was quite a proud Georgian. There is evidence that one reason Tbilisi is such a beautiful and marvellous survival, to this day, is because Stalin ordered that his Georgian capital be spared the Soviet demolitions that wiped out old towns in many other ethnic minority USSR statelets
"Trump’s second coming marks a historic turning point, comparable in its geopolitical consequences with the Soviet collapse: the definitive end of a liberal world order. With regime change in the US, countries that relied on American protection face an unavoidable choice: arm and defend themselves, or else make peace with the rising authoritarian powers. There is no going back."
Well, if the old crook has come twice, that's one up on Elon Musk.
Mr. Malmesbury, China's also making moves in Bhutan. They have a series of border disputes with India, and Bhutan is strategically located.
Apparently, what they are doing in Tibet is in a reaction to what they saw happen in the Baltics at the end of the Soviet Union.
Stalins plans to overwhelm the local populations with ethnic Russians were not fully carried out.
The Chinese intent is not to make that mistake. IIRC they are aiming for a population 80% Han Chinese. At minimum.
Yes, it's surprising, really, that Stalin did not create an overwhelming Russian majority, in those States, if necessary, by deporting most of the locals. He didn't usually leave loose ends.
It was easier for Stalin, however, as he had a booming ethnic Russian population
Xi Jinping's China has a birthrate of exactly 1 per woman, the one child policy has come horribly true in the most ironic way, leading to an imminent demographic crisis. China maybe does not HAVE enough Han Chinese to flood Tibet
An obvious point that is bizarrely ignored by those who think the 21st century is Chinese. Nope, it's fucked.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
The 1977 election manifesto of the right-wing Israeli Likud party said: "Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." Was that invoking racial hatred against the Palestinian people?
The answer to both questions is NO. They are both voicing an aspiration.
Likud called for Israeli *sovereignty* from the river to the sea
Hamas called for the liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea. Elsewhere they said that Jews should not be allowed to live in a free Palestine.
In the most generous interpretation Hamas is calling for ethnic cleansing. Likud was not.
I think that Likud is about as keen on ethnic cleansing as Hamas is.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.
I believe it's called "ethnic cleansing". FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY AND NOT GETTING BANNED, I AM NOT ESPOUSING IT, merely stating the facts
Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route
It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades
Mr. Malmesbury, China's also making moves in Bhutan. They have a series of border disputes with India, and Bhutan is strategically located.
Apparently, what they are doing in Tibet is in a reaction to what they saw happen in the Baltics at the end of the Soviet Union.
Stalins plans to overwhelm the local populations with ethnic Russians were not fully carried out.
The Chinese intent is not to make that mistake. IIRC they are aiming for a population 80% Han Chinese. At minimum.
Yes, it's surprising, really, that Stalin did not create an overwhelming Russian majority, in those States, if necessary, by deporting most of the locals. He didn't usually leave loose ends.
It was easier for Stalin, however, as he had a booming ethnic Russian population
Xi Jinping's China has a birthrate of exactly 1 per woman, the one child policy has come horribly true in the most ironic way, leading to an imminent demographic crisis. China maybe does not HAVE enough Han Chinese to flood Tibet
That's the glass jaw of the world's most dangerous authoritarian regimes. They all face big demographic problems. In the short term, that makes them more dangerous, as they want to assert themselves while they still have the numbers.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
The 1977 election manifesto of the right-wing Israeli Likud party said: "Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." Was that invoking racial hatred against the Palestinian people?
The answer to both questions is NO. They are both voicing an aspiration.
Likud called for Israeli *sovereignty* from the river to the sea
Hamas called for the liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea. Elsewhere they said that Jews should not be allowed to live in a free Palestine.
In the most generous interpretation Hamas is calling for ethnic cleansing. Likud was not.
I think that Likud is about as keen on ethnic cleansing as Hamas is.
I have often thought that the shrewd Palestinian policy, guaranteed to get Israel in favour of a two state solution sharpish, is to say “ok, one state, and everyone gets a vote”.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.
I believe it's called "ethnic cleansing". FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY AND NOT GETTING BANNED, I AM NOT ESPOUSING IT, merely stating the facts
Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route
It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades
Carry on like that and you'll be banned for EXCESSIVE USE OF CAPITALS ;-)
London, Seoul, Manila, Yerevan, Tbilisi, Paris…
Back in London now. My journey from Sirgao island to Heathrow took 28 fucking hours. EEEEEK
And when I arrived at LHR at 6.40 this morning I was greeted with the news that Sadiq Khan has suspended all Heathrow Express and Liz Line services for the weekend
So a £100 taxi it was
Still, it's nice to be home. I have unwrapped my souvenirs and they all look very fancy in my kitchen
Welcome back. We can now start the PB clock on how many hours/minutes until the first posting of "fuck, Britain, the endless grey skies and despair, how does anyone live here" etc etc
Mr. Malmesbury, China's also making moves in Bhutan. They have a series of border disputes with India, and Bhutan is strategically located.
Apparently, what they are doing in Tibet is in a reaction to what they saw happen in the Baltics at the end of the Soviet Union.
Stalins plans to overwhelm the local populations with ethnic Russians were not fully carried out.
The Chinese intent is not to make that mistake. IIRC they are aiming for a population 80% Han Chinese. At minimum.
Yes, it's surprising, really, that Stalin did not create an overwhelming Russian majority, in those States, if necessary, by deporting most of the locals. He didn't usually leave loose ends.
It was easier for Stalin, however, as he had a booming ethnic Russian population
Xi Jinping's China has a birthrate of exactly 1 per woman, the one child policy has come horribly true in the most ironic way, leading to an imminent demographic crisis. China maybe does not HAVE enough Han Chinese to flood Tibet
That's the glass jaw of the world's most dangerous authoritarian regimes. They all face big demographic problems. In the short term, that makes them more dangerous, as they want to assert themselves while they still have the numbers.
And the secret weapon of democracies (and the flip side of the need to get control of our immigration numbers) is that people actually WANT to come and live here voluntarily.
If the police come to your door talking about a non-crime hate incident you politely tell them that since they have told you it is a non-crime you have no obligation to talk to them. If they wish to write to you then they are free to do so, you will pass the letter onto your solicitor who will reply.
Essex Police deny that they described it as a "non-crime hate incident" as Pearson says.
I don't know whether she or the Police are being accurate there, and she could still have said that she didn't want to give a voluntary interview and they could either arrest her on suspicion of an offence or deal with it by correspondence.
It does seem to me a bit much is being made of it. Police may well have over-reacted to the nature of the incident, but equally it's hardly surprising if a complaint is made about you that the Police would knock on your door and ask to have a word about it.
Mr. Malmesbury, China's also making moves in Bhutan. They have a series of border disputes with India, and Bhutan is strategically located.
Apparently, what they are doing in Tibet is in a reaction to what they saw happen in the Baltics at the end of the Soviet Union.
Stalins plans to overwhelm the local populations with ethnic Russians were not fully carried out.
The Chinese intent is not to make that mistake. IIRC they are aiming for a population 80% Han Chinese. At minimum.
Yes, it's surprising, really, that Stalin did not create an overwhelming Russian majority, in those States, if necessary, by deporting most of the locals. He didn't usually leave loose ends.
It was easier for Stalin, however, as he had a booming ethnic Russian population
Xi Jinping's China has a birthrate of exactly 1 per woman, the one child policy has come horribly true in the most ironic way, leading to an imminent demographic crisis. China maybe does not HAVE enough Han Chinese to flood Tibet
An obvious point that is bizarrely ignored by those who think the 21st century is Chinese. Nope, it's fucked.
Well, maybe
I was talking to a political writer in Korea about their birthrates, and he pointed out that east Asia, esp China is racing away with robotics so as to avoid this crisis. And China in particular really is way ahead of any other nation, maybe even the USA, in most forms of robotics. They have more self drive cars buses etc, they are taking more risks, they are producing some amazing robotic forms
Check this Chinese wheeled robot dog (apols for the horrific music)
Unless they wish to arrest you on suspicion of a crime, do you not have a fundamental right to tell the police to piss off if they come to your door, just like you do anyone else?
Unless they have a warrant, yes.
This is the bit that confuses about all these new concepts like “non-crime hate incidents”. The principle used to be simple: don’t be impolite, but absent the suspicion of a crime you could just refuse to engage with the police, and and if they persist then you ask them for name, shoulder number, station, and under what powers they are are stopping/disturbing you, and if at home whether they have a warrant.
However these odd new categories seem to break that down. The guidance around NCHIs is written as if the subject is being informed because (and only because) their personal data is being processed within the meaning of GDPR. However it seems like this process often presents as the police confronting someone over their behaviour. It’s all a bit off.
Might be easiest to just have a GDPR carve out, never tell anyone they are mentioned in an NCHI, ensure they can’t affect employment or be declared in court, and move on. Those that want to count them are happy, the police can use them as a soft form of intelligence if they want to (clogging up their systems and not adding very much), and they will have no impact on anyone’s life.
The current guidance around NCHI's is not in compliance with the law. The police have been told but in their arrogance, aided and abetted by politicians, they ignore the law.
This is not unusual for the police but it is very troubling. The advice remains: never engage with the police on this topic - other than through a lawyer who knows their stuff.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.
I believe it's called "ethnic cleansing". FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY AND NOT GETTING BANNED, I AM NOT ESPOUSING IT, merely stating the facts
Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route
It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades
Carry on like that and you'll be banned for EXCESSIVE USE OF CAPITALS ;-)
London, Seoul, Manila, Yerevan, Tbilisi, Paris…
Back in London now. My journey from Sirgao island to Heathrow took 28 fucking hours. EEEEEK
And when I arrived at LHR at 6.40 this morning I was greeted with the news that Sadiq Khan has suspended all Heathrow Express and Liz Line services for the weekend
So a £100 taxi it was
Still, it's nice to be home. I have unwrapped my souvenirs and they all look very fancy in my kitchen
Welcome back. We can now start the PB clock on how many hours/minutes until the first posting of "fuck, Britain, the endless grey skies and despair, how does anyone live here" etc etc
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
The 1977 election manifesto of the right-wing Israeli Likud party said: "Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." Was that invoking racial hatred against the Palestinian people?
The answer to both questions is NO. They are both voicing an aspiration.
Likud called for Israeli *sovereignty* from the river to the sea
Hamas called for the liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea. Elsewhere they said that Jews should not be allowed to live in a free Palestine.
In the most generous interpretation Hamas is calling for ethnic cleansing. Likud was not.
I think that Likud is about as keen on ethnic cleansing as Hamas is.
I have often thought that the shrewd Palestinian policy, guaranteed to get Israel in favour of a two state solution sharpish, is to say “ok, one state, and everyone gets a vote”.
The Israeli Right want the West Bank, preferably with its inhabitants driven away; but failing that, living as helots.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.
I believe it's called "ethnic cleansing". FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY AND NOT GETTING BANNED, I AM NOT ESPOUSING IT, merely stating the facts
Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route
It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades
Carry on like that and you'll be banned for EXCESSIVE USE OF CAPITALS ;-)
London, Seoul, Manila, Yerevan, Tbilisi, Paris…
Back in London now. My journey from Sirgao island to Heathrow took 28 fucking hours. EEEEEK
And when I arrived at LHR at 6.40 this morning I was greeted with the news that Sadiq Khan has suspended all Heathrow Express and Liz Line services for the weekend
So a £100 taxi it was
Still, it's nice to be home. I have unwrapped my souvenirs and they all look very fancy in my kitchen
Mr Khan personally bit the track, presumably?
I see there was a "track defect" on the Heathrow Express/Crosslink routes that has now been mended, not even a quarter into the weekend.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
Has Pearson apologised for labelling people "jew haters", apparently for the crime of having their photo taken while brown?
Citation required
???? Not sure what you are after seeing as that is the whole story. Having made the mistake of identifying some Pakistani persons as Jew haters she deleted the post having misidentified them. Are you claiming this part is untrue? You don't need a citation as you can easily look it up for yourself.
I have seen no proof of anything from anyone in this debate, not Pearson not the Telegraph, not the Guardian not Essex Police. So I am genuinely in the dark. We are not even sure - AFAICS - what is the offending tweet and who tweeted it?
Needing some evidence before opining? ... well well well.
Hmm. They have not accused her of lying, which involves assigning a motive.
They have said her report is in error.
She needs to make a complaint to IOPC, in addition to yelling her head off in her echo chamber.
My view is that there are important points here, as I mentioned yesterday a couple of times. But, if the report from Pearson is accurate (and that strand of the right are currently given to hyperbole as they have nothing else to work with), it is about overreach and maybe police amateurishness not Keir Starmer and political oppression of elderly white people. A framing as "free speech" is nonsensical.
It is not new; I've been following this type of overreach since about 2000, and there have been 6 or 7 lots of it around different obsessions at different times. One has been Blair's massive overuse of Section 44 searches around 2007-2009, another was harassment of street photographers as 'terrorists', another was around a moral panic about 'paedos' everywhere, and more recently we have had certain Trans Activists who have abused police attention to their issue as a lever to use police as an outsourced harassment service to get at people who disagree with them (Caroline Farrow has been one victim).
When we were dealing with overdone "cease and desist" letters from bastard lawyers such as Carter-Fuck back in 2007 or so (cf the one that closed down Boris Johnson's website by mistake because a cowardly internet host pulled the plug on a whole server *), we campaigned on a cross-party basis.
Campaigning on a cross-party basis from principle is what is needed now on this, but the current self-obsessed Right are as thick as planks.
If the police come to your door talking about a non-crime hate incident you politely tell them that since they have told you it is a non-crime you have no obligation to talk to them. If they wish to write to you then they are free to do so, you will pass the letter onto your solicitor who will reply.
Essex Police deny that they described it as a "non-crime hate incident" as Pearson says.
I don't know whether she or the Police are being accurate there, and she could still have said that she didn't want to give a voluntary interview and they could either arrest her on suspicion of an offence or deal with it by correspondence.
It does seem to me a bit much is being made of it. Police may well have over-reacted to the nature of the incident, but equally it's hardly surprising if a complaint is made about you that the Police would knock on your door and ask to have a word about it.
I would always, on principle, take issue with the police knocking on my door unless they fear for my safety, need to pass on awful news, or want to arrest someone in the house/have a warrant to search the premises.
Anything else and they should write to me. If they can knock on my door they can send me a letter. Knocking on the door is deliberately confrontational.
If the police come to your door talking about a non-crime hate incident you politely tell them that since they have told you it is a non-crime you have no obligation to talk to them. If they wish to write to you then they are free to do so, you will pass the letter onto your solicitor who will reply.
Essex Police deny that they described it as a "non-crime hate incident" as Pearson says.
I don't know whether she or the Police are being accurate there, and she could still have said that she didn't want to give a voluntary interview and they could either arrest her on suspicion of an offence or deal with it by correspondence.
It does seem to me a bit much is being made of it. Police may well have over-reacted to the nature of the incident, but equally it's hardly surprising if a complaint is made about you that the Police would knock on your door and ask to have a word about it.
She was probably angling for an Elon Musk "UK Police State!" retweet. They are much sought after in right-wing circles, I gather.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
Has Pearson apologised for labelling people "jew haters", apparently for the crime of having their photo taken while brown?
Citation required
???? Not sure what you are after seeing as that is the whole story. Having made the mistake of identifying some Pakistani persons as Jew haters she deleted the post having misidentified them. Are you claiming this part is untrue? You don't need a citation as you can easily look it up for yourself.
I have seen no proof of anything from anyone in this debate, not Pearson not the Telegraph, not the Guardian not Essex Police. So I am genuinely in the dark. We are not even sure - AFAICS - what is the offending tweet and who tweeted it?
Needing some evidence before opining? ... well well well.
Perhaps I have spiritually grown during my long sojourns abroad, enriching my mind thereby. You should try it. Maybe get a ferry to Dieppe for the day
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
Has Pearson apologised for labelling people "jew haters", apparently for the crime of having their photo taken while brown?
Citation required
???? Not sure what you are after seeing as that is the whole story. Having made the mistake of identifying some Pakistani persons as Jew haters she deleted the post having misidentified them. Are you claiming this part is untrue? You don't need a citation as you can easily look it up for yourself.
I have seen no proof of anything from anyone in this debate, not Pearson not the Telegraph, not the Guardian not Essex Police. So I am genuinely in the dark. We are not even sure - AFAICS - what is the offending tweet and who tweeted it?
Needing some evidence before opining? ... well well well.
Perhaps I have spiritually grown during my long sojourns abroad, enriching my mind thereby.
The evidence is to the contrary. We rarely get a better example of travel narrowing the mind, being just a boastful way of temporarily escaping a meaningless existence.
Regarding America. John Gray describes Trump's victory (in the article linked to earlier) as being similar to the soviet collapse, but the more I think about it, I don't agree with that analysis. My sense is that 'the soviet collapse' scenario would have been likely to occur if business carried on as usual, because the western liberal order was unable to adapt to numerous intractible issues it was encountering, the Ukraine war being the most obvious one; and was beholden to intolerant extremists. So the opportunity with Trump is for evolution, in to a new world order that has none of the illusions and baggage of the old 'liberal world order'. It is essentially up to Europe how it wants to deal with this but what should be clear to everyone now is the old world is not coming back or being restored, and those that adapt fastest will succeed. It is unfortunate for the UK that we have Labour in power at this moment, who have failed to make any preperation for what has just happened, despite the election of Trump being a highly likely outcome. They need to adapt very quickly.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
My view is that the law as drafted captures so many different scenarios, it prohibits a lot of speech and discourse. But the public order laws are not objectively enforced, they are enforced with state discretion for the purpose of maintaining 'order'. This is the point I am trying to make with this example. So it seems to be an inherently political tool, which people don't always see - they think instead of it being a law that everyone should just follow, like the law on shoplifting or something. Do the crime do the time etc.
Recently the law appears to have been selectively enforced against the 'far right' protesters. I don't object to this in principle as I can see that the state had to get the riots under control. But I think the prison sentences that followed were severely misjudged, they erode trust in the state amongst part of the population, and will lead to adverse political and even diplomatic consequences for the UK. This is in line with the view of the 'reform' party, I think.
Regarding 'from the river to the sea' a lot would depend on context. I was suprised walking around East London last year that people could freely chant 'from the river to the sea' and 'support the palestinian militias' in the aftermath of October 7th, and this would not fall foul of this law.
One of the most outrageous examples of this Two Tier stuff is the case of the guys who drove around Jewish north London screaming out, with megaphones, "fuck the Jews" "fuck their mothers", "rape their Jewish daughters", while waving Palestinian flags etc - and much else
Is there a clearer example of intimidatory racism and anti-Semitism? It's far worse than "from the river to the sea"
You may presume these guys were banged up. They were not. All charges were dropped. "Not enough evidence". Apart from an actual video
I understand that when the BBC reported the bus incident unsubstantiated claims were made that Jews on the bus had provoked the situation. Although this wasn't corroborated it was felt necessary to report it so as to explain the behaviour of the abusers.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Why am I thinking of the Plebgate meeting - where police officers came out of a meeting and immediately lied about what took place? Then tried to threaten prosecution, when it turned out they had been recorded
Allison P can get that under a Subject Access Request, or whatever the police process is, can she not?
I don't believe that the police will publish that without request / consent or as evidence.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
Has Pearson apologised for labelling people "jew haters", apparently for the crime of having their photo taken while brown?
Citation required
???? Not sure what you are after seeing as that is the whole story. Having made the mistake of identifying some Pakistani persons as Jew haters she deleted the post having misidentified them. Are you claiming this part is untrue? You don't need a citation as you can easily look it up for yourself.
I hYws, I have seen no proof of anything from anyone in this debate, not Pearson not the Telegraph, not the Guardian not Essex Police. So I am genuinely in the dark. We are not even sure - AFAICS - what is the offending tweet and who tweeted it?
Needing some evidence before opining? ... well well well.
Perhaps I have spiritually grown during my long sojourns abroad, enriching my mind thereby.
The evidence is to the contrary. We rarely get a better example of travel narrowing the mind, being just a boastful way of temporarily escaping a meaningless existence.
You're right
*sob*
And yet this is slightly unfair. I can only play the hand I am dealt, and I play it as best I can. You don't know how much I yearn for the rich, fulfilled, poetically intense and spiritually dramatic life of a retired middlebrow Lib Dem voting quack from suburban Leicester who has done nothing of note in his entire life, and yet - it was not to be, we cannot ALL be you - so I must make do and mend
I just woke up from a dream that the Official Monster Raving Loony Party had won the US election with Count Binface as president, and he was nominating a load of weirdos for the cabinet...
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
Has Pearson apologised for labelling people "jew haters", apparently for the crime of having their photo taken while brown?
Citation required
???? Not sure what you are after seeing as that is the whole story. Having made the mistake of identifying some Pakistani persons as Jew haters she deleted the post having misidentified them. Are you claiming this part is untrue? You don't need a citation as you can easily look it up for yourself.
I have seen no proof of anything from anyone in this debate, not Pearson not the Telegraph, not the Guardian not Essex Police. So I am genuinely in the dark. We are not even sure - AFAICS - what is the offending tweet and who tweeted it?
Needing some evidence before opining? ... well well well.
Perhaps I have spiritually grown during my long sojourns abroad, enriching my mind thereby. You should try it. Maybe get a ferry to Dieppe for the day
I have a cat now. It rather anchors a person. But I don't mind. You gain such a lot. Lol, the stories I could tell. Like yesterday ... no forget it, you wouldn't be interested.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
My view is that the law as drafted captures so many different scenarios, it prohibits a lot of speech and discourse. But the public order laws are not objectively enforced, they are enforced with state discretion for the purpose of maintaining 'order'. This is the point I am trying to make with this example. So it seems to be an inherently political tool, which people don't always see - they think instead of it being a law that everyone should just follow, like the law on shoplifting or something. Do the crime do the time etc.
Recently the law appears to have been selectively enforced against the 'far right' protesters. I don't object to this in principle as I can see that the state had to get the riots under control. But I think the prison sentences that followed were severely misjudged, they erode trust in the state amongst part of the population, and will lead to adverse political and even diplomatic consequences for the UK. This is in line with the view of the 'reform' party, I think.
Regarding 'from the river to the sea' a lot would depend on context. I was suprised walking around East London last year that people could freely chant 'from the river to the sea' and 'support the palestinian militias' in the aftermath of October 7th, and this would not fall foul of this law.
One of the most outrageous examples of this Two Tier stuff is the case of the guys who drove around Jewish north London screaming out, with megaphones, "fuck the Jews" "fuck their mothers", "rape their Jewish daughters", while waving Palestinian flags etc - and much else
Is there a clearer example of intimidatory racism and anti-Semitism? It's far worse than "from the river to the sea"
You may presume these guys were banged up. They were not. All charges were dropped. "Not enough evidence". Apart from an actual video
I understand that when the BBC reported the bus incident unsubstantiated claims were made that Jews on the bus had provoked the situation. Although this wasn't corroborated it was felt necessary to report it so as to explain the behaviour of the abusers.
Yeah, exactly. Probably the same here. Those pro-Palestinian guys from Up North were unfairly provoked by Jews living in Finchley so they had no choice but to drive all the way down the M1 to Frognal to scream "fuck the Jews" and "rape all the Jewish daughters" through a megaphone, frankly, the Jews are lucky they didn't provoke a worse backlash, what do they expect with their "living quietly in London and being Jewish" thing: it's bound to rile people
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
Has Pearson apologised for labelling people "jew haters", apparently for the crime of having their photo taken while brown?
Citation required
???? Not sure what you are after seeing as that is the whole story. Having made the mistake of identifying some Pakistani persons as Jew haters she deleted the post having misidentified them. Are you claiming this part is untrue? You don't need a citation as you can easily look it up for yourself.
I have seen no proof of anything from anyone in this debate, not Pearson not the Telegraph, not the Guardian not Essex Police. So I am genuinely in the dark. We are not even sure - AFAICS - what is the offending tweet and who tweeted it?
Needing some evidence before opining? ... well well well.
Perhaps I have spiritually grown during my long sojourns abroad, enriching my mind thereby. You should try it. Maybe get a ferry to Dieppe for the day
I have a cat now. It rather anchors a person. But I don't mind. You gain such a lot. Lol, the stories I could tell. Like yesterday ... no forget it, you wouldn't be interested.
I've seen your cat. We all have
How can I phrase this politely. I get the feeling he would not waste away to skeletal death if you took off an entire weekend...
Regarding America. John Gray describes Trump's victory (in the article linked to earlier) as being similar to the soviet collapse, but the more I think about it, I don't agree with that analysis. My sense is that 'the soviet collapse' scenario would have been likely to occur if business carried on as usual, because the western liberal order was unable to adapt to numerous intractible issues it was encountering, the Ukraine war being the most obvious one; and was beholden to intolerant extremists. So the opportunity with Trump is for evolution, in to a new world order that has none of the illusions and baggage of the old 'liberal world order'. It is essentially up to Europe how it wants to deal with this but what should be clear to everyone now is the old world is not coming back or being restored, and those that adapt fastest will succeed. It is unfortunate for the UK that we have Labour in power at this moment, who have failed to make any preperation for what has just happened, despite the election of Trump being a highly likely outcome. They need to adapt very quickly.
You carry on with that there "thinking". It's cheaper than putting the heating on.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.
I believe it's called "ethnic cleansing". FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY AND NOT GETTING BANNED, I AM NOT ESPOUSING IT, merely stating the facts
Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route
It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades
Until very recently, ethnic cleansing (so long as it was not accompanied by excessive violence), was viewed as statesmanship, rather than a crime.
Unwanted populations just had to leave, so as to ensure the stability of the State. It happened all over Eastern Europe, after 1945.
As the world reverts to older political ethics, I expect we’ll see that again.
The Genocide Convention came into being very shortly after WWII. That does not suggest that ethnic cleansing was regarded as statesmanship.
I'd argue that just the same arguments between the "realists" and the moralists existed then as now. It's just that the scale of population displacement resulting from war in the 1940s - particularly as a proportion of the then world population - was an order of magnitude greater than now (at least 100m in China alone, for example).
As far as Eastern Europe is concerned, the politics were complicated, of course, by many on the left having sympathy with Soviet Communism, which obscured for them the brutal reality - coupled with what was seen as complicity with the Nazis during the Holocaust.
Unless we're about to experience worldwide trauma on the same scale (admittedly not completely impossible), it's not a good comparison.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
Has Pearson apologised for labelling people "jew haters", apparently for the crime of having their photo taken while brown?
An unrelated Pakistani saying something antisemitic is pretty poor whataboutery.
The diplomat was a senior PTI member.
The PTI have a history of senior people saying stuff like this.
I’d say that they are a bit of a mirror to Modi in India, in many ways.
Some senior members of the Labour Party have said antisemitic things in the past. Does that make it OK to call anyone supporting Labour a “Jew hater”?
No but neither does it mean you should be doorstopped by the police (if that is actually the reason they turned up). Not least when the police aren't even turning up for things like burglaries apparently.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.
I believe it's called "ethnic cleansing". FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY AND NOT GETTING BANNED, I AM NOT ESPOUSING IT, merely stating the facts
Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route
It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.
I believe it's called "ethnic cleansing". FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY AND NOT GETTING BANNED, I AM NOT ESPOUSING IT, merely stating the facts
Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route
It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades
Until very recently, ethnic cleansing (so long as it was not accompanied by excessive violence), was viewed as statesmanship, rather than a crime.
Unwanted populations just had to leave, so as to ensure the stability of the State. It happened all over Eastern Europe, after 1945.
As the world reverts to older political ethics, I expect we’ll see that again.
The Genocide Convention came into being very shortly after WWII. That does not suggest that ethnic cleansing was regarded as statesmanship.
I'd argue that just the same arguments between the "realists" and the moralists existed then as now. It's just that the scale of population displacement resulting from war in the 1940s - particularly as a proportion of the then world population - was an order of magnitude greater than now (at least 100m in China alone, for example).
As far as Eastern Europe is concerned, the politics were complicated, of course, by many on the left having sympathy with Soviet Communism, which obscured for them the brutal reality - coupled with what was seen as complicity with the Nazis during the Holocaust.
Unless we're about to experience worldwide trauma on the same scale (admittedly not completely impossible), it's not a good comparison.
If Trump follows through on his deportations promises, that could be the forcible ejection of ten million people from the USA (or more)
Mr. Malmesbury, China's also making moves in Bhutan. They have a series of border disputes with India, and Bhutan is strategically located.
Apparently, what they are doing in Tibet is in a reaction to what they saw happen in the Baltics at the end of the Soviet Union.
Stalins plans to overwhelm the local populations with ethnic Russians were not fully carried out.
The Chinese intent is not to make that mistake. IIRC they are aiming for a population 80% Han Chinese. At minimum.
Yes, it's surprising, really, that Stalin did not create an overwhelming Russian majority, in those States, if necessary, by deporting most of the locals. He didn't usually leave loose ends.
That wasn't the Soviet doctrine at the time.
Worldwide communism required that other ethnic states could sustain communism (which in the case of Eastern Europe meant killing or exiling to Siberia the awkward elements).
Poland's postwar borders were designed by Stalin explicitly to ensure an ethnic Polish state, for example.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
Has Pearson apologised for labelling people "jew haters", apparently for the crime of having their photo taken while brown?
Citation required
???? Not sure what you are after seeing as that is the whole story. Having made the mistake of identifying some Pakistani persons as Jew haters she deleted the post having misidentified them. Are you claiming this part is untrue? You don't need a citation as you can easily look it up for yourself.
I have seen no proof of anything from anyone in this debate, not Pearson not the Telegraph, not the Guardian not Essex Police. So I am genuinely in the dark. We are not even sure - AFAICS - what is the offending tweet and who tweeted it?
Needing some evidence before opining? ... well well well.
Perhaps I have spiritually grown during my long sojourns abroad, enriching my mind thereby. You should try it. Maybe get a ferry to Dieppe for the day
I have a cat now. It rather anchors a person. But I don't mind. You gain such a lot. Lol, the stories I could tell. Like yesterday ... no forget it, you wouldn't be interested.
I've seen your cat. We all have.
How can I phrase this politely. I get the feeling he would not waste away to skeletal death if you took off an entire weekend...
Of course he could 'survive' for quite some time on his own but that is not the point. You shouldn't have a pet if you aren't prepared to structure your entire life around them.
It's no big sacrifice anyway. We manage the odd afternoon out.
Regarding America. John Gray describes Trump's victory (in the article linked to earlier) as being similar to the soviet collapse, but the more I think about it, I don't agree with that analysis. My sense is that 'the soviet collapse' scenario would have been likely to occur if business carried on as usual, because the western liberal order was unable to adapt to numerous intractible issues it was encountering, the Ukraine war being the most obvious one; and was beholden to intolerant extremists. So the opportunity with Trump is for evolution, in to a new world order that has none of the illusions and baggage of the old 'liberal world order'. It is essentially up to Europe how it wants to deal with this but what should be clear to everyone now is the old world is not coming back or being restored, and those that adapt fastest will succeed. It is unfortunate for the UK that we have Labour in power at this moment, who have failed to make any preperation for what has just happened, despite the election of Trump being a highly likely outcome. They need to adapt very quickly.
If the police come to your door talking about a non-crime hate incident you politely tell them that since they have told you it is a non-crime you have no obligation to talk to them. If they wish to write to you then they are free to do so, you will pass the letter onto your solicitor who will reply.
Essex Police deny that they described it as a "non-crime hate incident" as Pearson says.
I don't know whether she or the Police are being accurate there, and she could still have said that she didn't want to give a voluntary interview and they could either arrest her on suspicion of an offence or deal with it by correspondence.
It does seem to me a bit much is being made of it. Police may well have over-reacted to the nature of the incident, but equally it's hardly surprising if a complaint is made about you that the Police would knock on your door and ask to have a word about it.
She was probably angling for an Elon Musk "UK Police State!" retweet. They are much sought after in right-wing circles, I gather.
Good to see you taking the side of the police like all solid citizens.
Mr. Malmesbury, China's also making moves in Bhutan. They have a series of border disputes with India, and Bhutan is strategically located.
Apparently, what they are doing in Tibet is in a reaction to what they saw happen in the Baltics at the end of the Soviet Union.
Stalins plans to overwhelm the local populations with ethnic Russians were not fully carried out.
The Chinese intent is not to make that mistake. IIRC they are aiming for a population 80% Han Chinese. At minimum.
Yes, it's surprising, really, that Stalin did not create an overwhelming Russian majority, in those States, if necessary, by deporting most of the locals. He didn't usually leave loose ends.
That wasn't the Soviet doctrine at the time.
Worldwide communism required that other ethnic states could sustain communism (which in the case of Eastern Europe meant killing or exiling to Siberia the awkward elements).
Poland's postwar borders were designed by Stalin explicitly to ensure an ethnic Polish state, for example.
Were they? Stalin regarded all Poles as potential traitors, and anti-Marxists, and treated them with extreme cruelty. Poles inside the USSR or unfortunate enough to be captured by the USSR (cf Katyn) generallyended up exiled or dead, or exiled then dead. If you look at the stats I believe Poles suffered worse under Stalin, per capita, than any other nationality; they are certainly near the top of this sad chart
Stalin's long term goal might have been the elimination of Polishness entirely
The irony is that in the long run Stalin was right, it was the Poles who rebelled against communism most effectively - Pope John Paul, Solidarnosc, etc - and thereby destroyed it in the end
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
My view is that the law as drafted captures so many different scenarios, it prohibits a lot of speech and discourse. But the public order laws are not objectively enforced, they are enforced with state discretion for the purpose of maintaining 'order'. This is the point I am trying to make with this example. So it seems to be an inherently political tool, which people don't always see - they think instead of it being a law that everyone should just follow, like the law on shoplifting or something. Do the crime do the time etc.
Recently the law appears to have been selectively enforced against the 'far right' protesters. I don't object to this in principle as I can see that the state had to get the riots under control. But I think the prison sentences that followed were severely misjudged, they erode trust in the state amongst part of the population, and will lead to adverse political and even diplomatic consequences for the UK. This is in line with the view of the 'reform' party, I think.
Regarding 'from the river to the sea' a lot would depend on context. I was suprised walking around East London last year that people could freely chant 'from the river to the sea' and 'support the palestinian militias' in the aftermath of October 7th, and this would not fall foul of this law.
One of the most outrageous examples of this Two Tier stuff is the case of the guys who drove around Jewish north London screaming out, with megaphones, "fuck the Jews" "fuck their mothers", "rape their Jewish daughters", while waving Palestinian flags etc - and much else
Is there a clearer example of intimidatory racism and anti-Semitism? It's far worse than "from the river to the sea"
You may presume these guys were banged up. They were not. All charges were dropped. "Not enough evidence". Apart from an actual video
I understand that when the BBC reported the bus incident unsubstantiated claims were made that Jews on the bus had provoked the situation. Although this wasn't corroborated it was felt necessary to report it so as to explain the behaviour of the abusers.
The opposite for the Amsterdam incident though. The vile behaviour of the Israeli hooligans was downplayed or airbrushed entirely in favour of a "Jews gratuitously targeted" narrative. So, you know, this "two tier" narrative, it's just nonsense really. Or rather it's pure subjectivity from those with an axe to grind from either side.
If the police come to your door talking about a non-crime hate incident you politely tell them that since they have told you it is a non-crime you have no obligation to talk to them. If they wish to write to you then they are free to do so, you will pass the letter onto your solicitor who will reply.
Essex Police deny that they described it as a "non-crime hate incident" as Pearson says.
I don't know whether she or the Police are being accurate there, and she could still have said that she didn't want to give a voluntary interview and they could either arrest her on suspicion of an offence or deal with it by correspondence.
It does seem to me a bit much is being made of it. Police may well have over-reacted to the nature of the incident, but equally it's hardly surprising if a complaint is made about you that the Police would knock on your door and ask to have a word about it.
She was probably angling for an Elon Musk "UK Police State!" retweet. They are much sought after in right-wing circles, I gather.
Good to see you taking the side of the police like all solid citizens.
Take them over Pearson any day of the week. She's garbage.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.
I believe it's called "ethnic cleansing". FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY AND NOT GETTING BANNED, I AM NOT ESPOUSING IT, merely stating the facts
Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route
It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades
Until very recently, ethnic cleansing (so long as it was not accompanied by excessive violence), was viewed as statesmanship, rather than a crime.
Unwanted populations just had to leave, so as to ensure the stability of the State. It happened all over Eastern Europe, after 1945.
As the world reverts to older political ethics, I expect we’ll see that again.
The Genocide Convention came into being very shortly after WWII. That does not suggest that ethnic cleansing was regarded as statesmanship.
I'd argue that just the same arguments between the "realists" and the moralists existed then as now. It's just that the scale of population displacement resulting from war in the 1940s - particularly as a proportion of the then world population - was an order of magnitude greater than now (at least 100m in China alone, for example).
As far as Eastern Europe is concerned, the politics were complicated, of course, by many on the left having sympathy with Soviet Communism, which obscured for them the brutal reality - coupled with what was seen as complicity with the Nazis during the Holocaust.
Unless we're about to experience worldwide trauma on the same scale (admittedly not completely impossible), it's not a good comparison.
If Trump follows through on his deportations promises, that could be the forcible ejection of ten million people from the USA (or more)
Perhaps not a good time to tempt Fate
Interesting what happens to the (likely very numerous) white collar and high paid workers within that 10 million number. Will the administration quietly make exceptions so that everyone it actually deports is low paid working class, or will it carry out its promises to the letter?
That’s a significant brain drain that we could potentially be in the bidding for. Though Canada is the most obvious destination, as are the richer Latin American and Asian source countries.
Mr. Malmesbury, China's also making moves in Bhutan. They have a series of border disputes with India, and Bhutan is strategically located.
Apparently, what they are doing in Tibet is in a reaction to what they saw happen in the Baltics at the end of the Soviet Union.
Stalins plans to overwhelm the local populations with ethnic Russians were not fully carried out.
The Chinese intent is not to make that mistake. IIRC they are aiming for a population 80% Han Chinese. At minimum.
Yes, it's surprising, really, that Stalin did not create an overwhelming Russian majority, in those States, if necessary, by deporting most of the locals. He didn't usually leave loose ends.
That wasn't the Soviet doctrine at the time.
Worldwide communism required that other ethnic states could sustain communism (which in the case of Eastern Europe meant killing or exiling to Siberia the awkward elements).
Poland's postwar borders were designed by Stalin explicitly to ensure an ethnic Polish state, for example.
Were they? Stalin regarded all Poles as potential traitors, and anti-Marxists, and treated them with extreme cruelty. Poles inside the USSR or unfortunate enough to be captured by the USSR (cf Katyn) generallyended up exiled or dead, or exiled then dead. If you look at the stats I believe Poles suffered worse under Stalin, per capita, than any other nationality; they are certainly near the top of this sad chart
Stalin's long term goal might have been the elimination of Polishness entirely
The irony is that in the long run Stalin was right, it was the Poles who rebelled against communism most effectively - Pope John Paul, Solidarnosc, etc - and thereby destroyed it in the end
God Bless Poland! A great country
German names for Polish cities and towns are easier to spell and say, however
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
Has Pearson apologised for labelling people "jew haters", apparently for the crime of having their photo taken while brown?
Citation required
???? Not sure what you are after seeing as that is the whole story. Having made the mistake of identifying some Pakistani persons as Jew haters she deleted the post having misidentified them. Are you claiming this part is untrue? You don't need a citation as you can easily look it up for yourself.
I have seen no proof of anything from anyone in this debate, not Pearson not the Telegraph, not the Guardian not Essex Police. So I am genuinely in the dark. We are not even sure - AFAICS - what is the offending tweet and who tweeted it?
Needing some evidence before opining? ... well well well.
Perhaps I have spiritually grown during my long sojourns abroad, enriching my mind thereby. You should try it. Maybe get a ferry to Dieppe for the day
I have a cat now. It rather anchors a person. But I don't mind. You gain such a lot. Lol, the stories I could tell. Like yesterday ... no forget it, you wouldn't be interested.
I've seen your cat. We all have.
How can I phrase this politely. I get the feeling he would not waste away to skeletal death if you took off an entire weekend...
Of course he could 'survive' for quite some time on his own but that is not the point. You shouldn't have a pet if you aren't prepared to structure your entire life around them.
It's no big sacrifice anyway. We manage the odd afternoon out.
We have a couple of cats (not my decision) and regularly go away for the weekend without them. Longer than that and we get someone to come in and feed them. But they’re still overfed bastards (again not my decision). They see me as the bad guy in the house and the feeling is at least partly mutual.
One of the cats did acquit itself well yesterday, chasing away the velociraptor-like heron that was casing the joint around the fishpond.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
Has Pearson apologised for labelling people "jew haters", apparently for the crime of having their photo taken while brown?
Citation required
???? Not sure what you are after seeing as that is the whole story. Having made the mistake of identifying some Pakistani persons as Jew haters she deleted the post having misidentified them. Are you claiming this part is untrue? You don't need a citation as you can easily look it up for yourself.
I have seen no proof of anything from anyone in this debate, not Pearson not the Telegraph, not the Guardian not Essex Police. So I am genuinely in the dark. We are not even sure - AFAICS - what is the offending tweet and who tweeted it?
Needing some evidence before opining? ... well well well.
Perhaps I have spiritually grown during my long sojourns abroad, enriching my mind thereby. You should try it. Maybe get a ferry to Dieppe for the day
I have a cat now. It rather anchors a person. But I don't mind. You gain such a lot. Lol, the stories I could tell. Like yesterday ... no forget it, you wouldn't be interested.
I've seen your cat. We all have.
How can I phrase this politely. I get the feeling he would not waste away to skeletal death if you took off an entire weekend...
Of course he could 'survive' for quite some time on his own but that is not the point. You shouldn't have a pet if you aren't prepared to structure your entire life around them.
It's no big sacrifice anyway. We manage the odd afternoon out.
We have a couple of cats (not my decision) and regularly go away for the weekend without them.
One of the cats did acquit itself well yesterday, chasing away the velociraptor-like heron that was casing the joint around the fishpond.
Octopus are a brilliant business. The speed they are growing market share in Europe, notably Germany, France, Spain and Italy, is incredible. Really friendly bunch too.
Regarding America. John Gray describes Trump's victory (in the article linked to earlier) as being similar to the soviet collapse, but the more I think about it, I don't agree with that analysis. My sense is that 'the soviet collapse' scenario would have been likely to occur if business carried on as usual, because the western liberal order was unable to adapt to numerous intractible issues it was encountering, the Ukraine war being the most obvious one; and was beholden to intolerant extremists. So the opportunity with Trump is for evolution, in to a new world order that has none of the illusions and baggage of the old 'liberal world order'. It is essentially up to Europe how it wants to deal with this but what should be clear to everyone now is the old world is not coming back or being restored, and those that adapt fastest will succeed. It is unfortunate for the UK that we have Labour in power at this moment, who have failed to make any preperation for what has just happened, despite the election of Trump being a highly likely outcome. They need to adapt very quickly.
Yes, stuff is changing, but I am not sure Darkage has made allowance for the fact that whatever is the new world order will have its own 'illusions and baggage'.
Further, liberalism being unable to deal with 'numerous intractable issues' it is encountering may be true, but that may be a reality of the human condition - the thing Matthew Parris compares with the unopenable pistachio nuts at the end of the party. They are still there because you can't open them. Some non liberals are remarkably bad at running countries too.
Also, the only other government available is a Tory one. Is there any evidence it is prepared any more than anyone else for what is coming. And what would you do in Labour's position?
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
Has Pearson apologised for labelling people "jew haters", apparently for the crime of having their photo taken while brown?
Citation required
???? Not sure what you are after seeing as that is the whole story. Having made the mistake of identifying some Pakistani persons as Jew haters she deleted the post having misidentified them. Are you claiming this part is untrue? You don't need a citation as you can easily look it up for yourself.
I have seen no proof of anything from anyone in this debate, not Pearson not the Telegraph, not the Guardian not Essex Police. So I am genuinely in the dark. We are not even sure - AFAICS - what is the offending tweet and who tweeted it?
Needing some evidence before opining? ... well well well.
Perhaps I have spiritually grown during my long sojourns abroad, enriching my mind thereby. You should try it. Maybe get a ferry to Dieppe for the day
I have a cat now. It rather anchors a person. But I don't mind. You gain such a lot. Lol, the stories I could tell. Like yesterday ... no forget it, you wouldn't be interested.
I've seen your cat. We all have.
How can I phrase this politely. I get the feeling he would not waste away to skeletal death if you took off an entire weekend...
Of course he could 'survive' for quite some time on his own but that is not the point. You shouldn't have a pet if you aren't prepared to structure your entire life around them.
It's no big sacrifice anyway. We manage the odd afternoon out.
We have a couple of cats (not my decision) and regularly go away for the weekend without them. Longer than that and we get someone to come in and feed them. But they’re still overfed bastards (again not my decision). They see me as the bad guy in the house and the feeling is at least partly mutual.
One of the cats did acquit itself well yesterday, chasing away the velociraptor-like heron that was casing the joint around the fishpond.
One of the passages that best described the crazy, contradictory, Quixotic world of Alan Clark was where he compelled himself to shoot a heron that was depopulating his moat, and literally blubbed into his diary afterwards. Could never stop myself liking the fash adjacent old sod for that (and other things).
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.
I believe it's called "ethnic cleansing". FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY AND NOT GETTING BANNED, I AM NOT ESPOUSING IT, merely stating the facts
Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route
It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades
Until very recently, ethnic cleansing (so long as it was not accompanied by excessive violence), was viewed as statesmanship, rather than a crime.
Unwanted populations just had to leave, so as to ensure the stability of the State. It happened all over Eastern Europe, after 1945.
As the world reverts to older political ethics, I expect we’ll see that again.
The Genocide Convention came into being very shortly after WWII. That does not suggest that ethnic cleansing was regarded as statesmanship.
I'd argue that just the same arguments between the "realists" and the moralists existed then as now. It's just that the scale of population displacement resulting from war in the 1940s - particularly as a proportion of the then world population - was an order of magnitude greater than now (at least 100m in China alone, for example).
As far as Eastern Europe is concerned, the politics were complicated, of course, by many on the left having sympathy with Soviet Communism, which obscured for them the brutal reality - coupled with what was seen as complicity with the Nazis during the Holocaust.
Unless we're about to experience worldwide trauma on the same scale (admittedly not completely impossible), it's not a good comparison.
If Trump follows through on his deportations promises, that could be the forcible ejection of ten million people from the USA (or more)
Perhaps not a good time to tempt Fate
Interesting what happens to the (likely very numerous) white collar and high paid workers within that 10 million number. Will the administration quietly make exceptions so that everyone it actually deports is low paid working class, or will it carry out its promises to the letter?
That’s a significant brain drain that we could potentially be in the bidding for. Though Canada is the most obvious destination, as are the richer Latin American and Asian source countries.
I highly doubt there will be many high paid and white collar workers deported from the US. High paid immigrants tend to be in the US legally, and even if not can usually afford the lawyers etc necessary to jam the process up. In practice you're probably looking at poor border jumpers working illegally below minimum wage.
But I actually think that, though there will be a few deportations, the number will probably be in the tens or hundreds of thousands rather than millions, because of all the logistical and legal problems, if they manage to deport anyone at all. And many of them will probably try to jump the border again the moment they get the chance. It won't be the first time that Trump has talked big and delivered nothing but disruption and chaos.
Mr. F, your mention of helots reminds me that Sparta also screwed itself demographically, growing substantially weaker over the centuries due to its policies which led to low fertility levels plus the costs of dining clubs meaning some citizens had to lose Spartiate status.
Earlier I mentioned the Caroline Farrow case, where a spurious report by a trans activist over a tweet lead to Surrey police attending her house and seizing all her devices for "evidence", including the iPad with bedtime stories for her autistic son.
It took a legal action and several years to make them back down and pay costs - legal action is I think continuing.
I'm not much on Caroline's political tradition - she's essentially a fairly traditionist Catholic (I *think* RC as her Vicar husband is iirc in the Ordinariate - a structure in the RC denomination for Anglican Vicars who transfer), with various affiliations around that.
But overreach and amateurishness because of overdone emphases are an experience across politics.
Mr. Horse, a lot depends on the Lib Dems. If Labour are woefully unpopular and the Lib Dems can go after them we might shift to a more three party situation which makes a Hung Parliament far likelier.
The Coalition, of course, proved that it can happen with a two and a half party situation, but it's way less likely.
Edited extra bit: anyway, I must be off, interesting as demography is to discuss.
Mr. F, your mention of helots reminds me that Sparta also screwed itself demographically, growing substantially weaker over the centuries due to its policies which led to low fertility levels plus the costs of dining clubs meaning some citizens had to lose Spartiate status.
You get societies like Sparta, or 18th century Poland or Venice, where the ruling caste prioritises the preservation of its own privileges over and above the survival of the State.
To be fair to the egregious Ms Pearson - I'll believe the police when they publish the footage and it's confirmed by an independent party to be genuine. And not one second before.
It is possible they simply have different slants on the incident.
And it's possible of course that they're all lying.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the full encounter the cams caught.
Its not like its a volatile incident happening without notice. It is a meeting with a senior antagonistic journalist at ta time of the police's choosing. There is near zero chance they don't have all of it.
The police won't have mentioned non crime hate crime, they might have mentioned hate crime but more likely public order act 1986 (yes that is how long this has been the status quo). Pearson will think she has committed no crime and is therefore justified in calling it a no crime hate crime.
"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
As an aside, I have never understood how chanting 'from the river to the sea' does not meet this description. As it seems to be 'threatening, abusive and insulting', and also in my view invokes racial hatred against the Jewish people.
I'm intrigued by your view darkage and tbh I don't think I've ever fully understood the opprobrium chanting 'from the river to the sea' receives.
If someone has a view that the creation of the Isreali state was wrong* and the land should revert to being a Palestinian state is there any legitimate way in which they can protest?
Andy McDonald was suspended from the Labour Party after stating in a pro-Palestine rally speech: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty". The party described McDonald's comment as "deeply offensive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Usage
What's 'deeply offensive' about wishing that 'all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty'?
(*For the avoidance of doubt, I fully support Isreal's right to exist.)
A belief that the creation of Israel was 'wrong' is inherently meaningless unless the believer can spell out the method by which they hope to change it. In the British context it would be equivalent to the belief that a multiracial society is 'wrong' and that we should revert to the all-white status quo ante. Anyone espousing such a view should be tasked with explaining how they propose to make it happen. Or stfu.
I believe it's called "ethnic cleansing". FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY AND NOT GETTING BANNED, I AM NOT ESPOUSING IT, merely stating the facts
Ethnic cleansing has absolutely happened, many times, in history, so it is foolish to claim it is impossible. In some situations you can argue that it has been beneficial - eg the swapping of Greek/Turkish populations in the 1920s so as to make Turkey echt Turkish and Greece echt Greek was arguably a success, even though much suffering was caused en route
It largely brought to an end a bloody and seething conflict which had endured for many decades
Until very recently, ethnic cleansing (so long as it was not accompanied by excessive violence), was viewed as statesmanship, rather than a crime.
Unwanted populations just had to leave, so as to ensure the stability of the State. It happened all over Eastern Europe, after 1945.
As the world reverts to older political ethics, I expect we’ll see that again.
The Genocide Convention came into being very shortly after WWII. That does not suggest that ethnic cleansing was regarded as statesmanship.
I'd argue that just the same arguments between the "realists" and the moralists existed then as now. It's just that the scale of population displacement resulting from war in the 1940s - particularly as a proportion of the then world population - was an order of magnitude greater than now (at least 100m in China alone, for example).
As far as Eastern Europe is concerned, the politics were complicated, of course, by many on the left having sympathy with Soviet Communism, which obscured for them the brutal reality - coupled with what was seen as complicity with the Nazis during the Holocaust.
Unless we're about to experience worldwide trauma on the same scale (admittedly not completely impossible), it's not a good comparison.
Genocide was a new term, in the 1940's, and not everyone saw ethnic cleansing (or as they would have called it "population transfer") as genocide. In any case, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 outlawed a number of things that had been considered normative in war, just a few years previously, like taking hostages, pillaging the defeated, summary execution of adult males in reprisal for the actions of partisans, and which would be considered normative for quite a while longer.
(As an example, Eric Priebke, who ordered the execution of 335 Italian men in 1944, in retaliation for partisans killing 33 German police, was ultimately, only found guilty of five murders. Back in 1944, it would have been in accord with the Law of Armed Conflict to execute adult Italian males at a ratio of ten to one, in retaliation for the acitons of partisans. Had he limited himself to 330 executions, he would have been acquitted.)
"Trump’s second coming marks a historic turning point, comparable in its geopolitical consequences with the Soviet collapse: the definitive end of a liberal world order. With regime change in the US, countries that relied on American protection face an unavoidable choice: arm and defend themselves, or else make peace with the rising authoritarian powers. There is no going back."
Whilst as always with gray it's yes-but-no-but-yes-but-no-but. However from that article I do take this quote";
"...In an age of scientism, it was predictable that they should turn to numbers for reassurance that the battle could be won. With all their high-tech mathematical models, the pollsters proved no better oracles than they were in 2016. The hosts of “knowledge workers” mass-produced by ideologically captured universities were exposed as knowing nothing. The future of this class is bleak..."
I've been banging on about the limits of models for some time. They are a tool for deciding between two or more options, they are not more than that. A model that tells you whether it is going to rain tomorrow is a tool for deciding whether to choose an umbrella. A model that tells you who is going to win the popular vote is a tool for deciding who to bet on. Jumping from that to "this is what is going to happen!" is a mistake and should always be abandoned when real data comes in. There is no point in using a model to see if it is raining when you have a window.
If the police come to your door talking about a non-crime hate incident you politely tell them that since they have told you it is a non-crime you have no obligation to talk to them. If they wish to write to you then they are free to do so, you will pass the letter onto your solicitor who will reply.
That’s is useful to know. This is not, according to Essex Police, what happened to Allison Pearson. They never mentioned non-crime hate incidents, and they say they have video to back that up.
Regarding America. John Gray describes Trump's victory (in the article linked to earlier) as being similar to the soviet collapse, but the more I think about it, I don't agree with that analysis. My sense is that 'the soviet collapse' scenario would have been likely to occur if business carried on as usual, because the western liberal order was unable to adapt to numerous intractible issues it was encountering, the Ukraine war being the most obvious one; and was beholden to intolerant extremists. So the opportunity with Trump is for evolution, in to a new world order that has none of the illusions and baggage of the old 'liberal world order'. It is essentially up to Europe how it wants to deal with this but what should be clear to everyone now is the old world is not coming back or being restored, and those that adapt fastest will succeed. It is unfortunate for the UK that we have Labour in power at this moment, who have failed to make any preperation for what has just happened, despite the election of Trump being a highly likely outcome. They need to adapt very quickly.
Yes, stuff is changing, but I am not sure Darkage has made allowance for the fact that whatever is the new world order will have its own 'illusions and baggage'.
Further, liberalism being unable to deal with 'numerous intractable issues' it is encountering may be true, but that may be a reality of the human condition - the thing Matthew Parris compares with the unopenable pistachio nuts at the end of the party. They are still there because you can't open them. Some non liberals are remarkably bad at running countries too.
Also, the only other government available is a Tory one. Is there any evidence it is prepared any more than anyone else for what is coming. And what would you do in Labour's position?
America reelecting Trump is certainly a world-changing event. It doesn't change the challenges we face, but it makes most of them more difficult and adds a new one. It's hard to see an upside to it unless you're one of these people that views "woke" as some sort of mortal threat to civilisation. Most Trump apologism/fandom comes from that quarter, I'd say.
Mr. Leon, the declining Chinese population is also unhelpful in the context of a market flooded with houses. They already have more housing than they need. The population could be just 400m by 2100 (or 800m, but still a lot lower than now).
May be we could send them some of our asylum seekers? Help them with population growth and us with our housing shortage…?
Earlier I mentioned the Caroline Farrow case, where a spurious report by a trans activist over a tweet lead to Surrey police attending her house and seizing all her devices for "evidence", including the iPad with bedtime stories for her autistic son.
It took a legal action and several years to make them back down and pay costs - legal action is I think continuing.
I'm not much on Caroline's political tradition - she's essentially a fairly traditionist Catholic (I *think* RC as her Vicar husband is iirc in the Ordinariate - a structure in the RC denomination for Anglican Vicars who transfer), with various affiliations around that.
But overreach and amateurishness because of overdone emphases are an experience across politics.
Farmers believe the government is lying about the number of farms that will be impacted by changes to inheritance tax, says @1GarethWynJones.
As to the total numbers it is going to depend on what counts as a 'farm'. Both sides will use this equivocation to uphold their points.
But it is an irrelevance. With the exception of the group who are both substantial in assets and have kept possession in the hands of a person now unlikely to live 7 years (which needs special attention) the people to talk to are not farmers but financial advisers, rural lawyers and accountants, all of whom have lots of experience of dealing with this stuff with intelligent planning. Like everyone else has always had to do.
Footnote. A rural lawyer tells me that the fuss about farms means that loads of privately owned non-farm businesses have failed to spot the impact of the new IHT rules on them.
Earlier I mentioned the Caroline Farrow case, where a spurious report by a trans activist over a tweet lead to Surrey police attending her house and seizing all her devices for "evidence", including the iPad with bedtime stories for her autistic son.
It took a legal action and several years to make them back down and pay costs - legal action is I think continuing.
I'm not much on Caroline's political tradition - she's essentially a fairly traditionist Catholic (I *think* RC as her Vicar husband is iirc in the Ordinariate - a structure in the RC denomination for Anglican Vicars who transfer), with various affiliations around that.
But overreach and amateurishness because of overdone emphases are an experience across politics.
Mr. Malmesbury, China's also making moves in Bhutan. They have a series of border disputes with India, and Bhutan is strategically located.
Apparently, what they are doing in Tibet is in a reaction to what they saw happen in the Baltics at the end of the Soviet Union.
Stalins plans to overwhelm the local populations with ethnic Russians were not fully carried out.
The Chinese intent is not to make that mistake. IIRC they are aiming for a population 80% Han Chinese. At minimum.
Yes, it's surprising, really, that Stalin did not create an overwhelming Russian majority, in those States, if necessary, by deporting most of the locals. He didn't usually leave loose ends.
He was interrupted by a slight case of death. The plans were made and started.
See Kaliningrad, for an example of the finished product.
If some sources are to be believed he was looking at mass deporting the non-Russian population of Ukraine.
Happened of course in parts of Ukraine. E.g. Crimea. Although whether that was really ever actually 'Ukrainian' is, AIUI, questionable.
Regarding America. John Gray describes Trump's victory (in the article linked to earlier) as being similar to the soviet collapse, but the more I think about it, I don't agree with that analysis. My sense is that 'the soviet collapse' scenario would have been likely to occur if business carried on as usual, because the western liberal order was unable to adapt to numerous intractible issues it was encountering, the Ukraine war being the most obvious one; and was beholden to intolerant extremists. So the opportunity with Trump is for evolution, in to a new world order that has none of the illusions and baggage of the old 'liberal world order'. It is essentially up to Europe how it wants to deal with this but what should be clear to everyone now is the old world is not coming back or being restored, and those that adapt fastest will succeed. It is unfortunate for the UK that we have Labour in power at this moment, who have failed to make any preperation for what has just happened, despite the election of Trump being a highly likely outcome. They need to adapt very quickly.
Yes, stuff is changing, but I am not sure Darkage has made allowance for the fact that whatever is the new world order will have its own 'illusions and baggage'.
Further, liberalism being unable to deal with 'numerous intractable issues' it is encountering may be true, but that may be a reality of the human condition - the thing Matthew Parris compares with the unopenable pistachio nuts at the end of the party. They are still there because you can't open them. Some non liberals are remarkably bad at running countries too.
Also, the only other government available is a Tory one. Is there any evidence it is prepared any more than anyone else for what is coming. And what would you do in Labour's position?
America reelecting Trump is certainly a world-changing event. It doesn't change the challenges we face, but it makes most of them more difficult and adds a new one. It's hard to see an upside to it unless you're one of these people that views "woke" as some sort of mortal threat to civilisation. Most Trump apologism/fandom comes from that quarter, I'd say.
"Trump’s second coming marks a historic turning point, comparable in its geopolitical consequences with the Soviet collapse: the definitive end of a liberal world order. With regime change in the US, countries that relied on American protection face an unavoidable choice: arm and defend themselves, or else make peace with the rising authoritarian powers. There is no going back."
Whilst as always with gray it's yes-but-no-but-yes-but-no-but. However from that article I do take this quote";
"...In an age of scientism, it was predictable that they should turn to numbers for reassurance that the battle could be won. With all their high-tech mathematical models, the pollsters proved no better oracles than they were in 2016. The hosts of “knowledge workers” mass-produced by ideologically captured universities were exposed as knowing nothing. The future of this class is bleak..."
I've been banging on about the limits of models for some time. They are a tool for deciding between two or more options, they are not more than that. A model that tells you whether it is going to rain tomorrow is a tool for deciding whether to choose an umbrella. A model that tells you who is going to win the popular vote is a tool for deciding who to bet on. Jumping from that to "this is what is going to happen!" is a mistake and should always be abandoned when real data comes in. There is no point in using a model to see if it is raining when you have a window.
Isn’t the problem with the piece’s analysis that it’s just plain wrong? The pollsters said the election would be close and it was close (4th closest ever in popular vote). Trump did slightly better than his polling suggested, but there wasn’t any great polling failure.
"Trump’s second coming marks a historic turning point, comparable in its geopolitical consequences with the Soviet collapse: the definitive end of a liberal world order. With regime change in the US, countries that relied on American protection face an unavoidable choice: arm and defend themselves, or else make peace with the rising authoritarian powers. There is no going back."
Whilst as always with gray it's yes-but-no-but-yes-but-no-but. However from that article I do take this quote";
"...In an age of scientism, it was predictable that they should turn to numbers for reassurance that the battle could be won. With all their high-tech mathematical models, the pollsters proved no better oracles than they were in 2016. The hosts of “knowledge workers” mass-produced by ideologically captured universities were exposed as knowing nothing. The future of this class is bleak..."
I've been banging on about the limits of models for some time. They are a tool for deciding between two or more options, they are not more than that. A model that tells you whether it is going to rain tomorrow is a tool for deciding whether to choose an umbrella. A model that tells you who is going to win the popular vote is a tool for deciding who to bet on. Jumping from that to "this is what is going to happen!" is a mistake and should always be abandoned when real data comes in. There is no point in using a model to see if it is raining when you have a window.
Ok, yes, and you're the man on this, but what Gray says there about the polls is total hyperbole. They did not miss by much. Essentially (on average) they called it a tie and quite a few of them gave Trump the edge. He won by 2 pts. It wasn't 49/49 it was 50/48. Big difference but also not.
There were 2 things to go on beforehand that could have pointed you either way. Ralston's analysis of NV early data said Trump. Selzer's "gold standard" old school poll of IA said Harris. The NV steer proved the one to follow.
But this ...
"The hosts of “knowledge workers” mass-produced by ideologically captured universities were exposed as knowing nothing."
Comments
Not so great for the Palestinians
That said, China has NOT successfully erased Tibetan identity, I've been there and it lives on quite vividly
Stalins plans to overwhelm the local populations with ethnic Russians were not fully carried out.
The Chinese intent is not to make that mistake. IIRC they are aiming for a population 80% Han Chinese. At minimum.
Cheltenham 1.45 - Breizh River
Cheltenham 2.20 - In Excelsis Deo
Cheltenham 2.55 - Quick Draw
Cheltenham 3.30 - Wyenot
And when I arrived at LHR at 6.40 this morning I was greeted with the news that Sadiq Khan has suspended all Heathrow Express and Liz Line services for the weekend
So a £100 taxi it was
Still, it's nice to be home. I have unwrapped my souvenirs and they all look very fancy in my kitchen
Police can enter to investigate a crime on the spot.
Or for "close pursuit" if they believe a suspect is there.
Or if they believe a serious crime has been committed.
And from me: There are also "welfare checks", if they believe someone may be is in distress or need of help inside eg if someone reported "I haven't seen my diabetic neighbour for 2 days, and the lights were on all night. I'm worried.". This bubbles up sometimes in the landlord forums - where some police forces will refuse to pay for replacing a door they smashed down if they think they had good reason for forcing entry to a property for a welfare check or eg in belief that it was a cannabis growing site. They usually pay if they have broken into the wrong house, which is not unknown.
Plus there are lots of weird and wonderful laws which have powers of entry to all kinds of people, and police may accompany. There was some activism on this a few years ago, and there were hundreds of them. A Government Review around 2013 reduced these powers of entry from 1237 to 912.
Ministers of each department laid their final reports in Parliament on 27 November 2014 which showed that a total of 1,237 powers of entry had been subject to review. Government agreed a significant reduction in the overall number of powers at that time, reducing the total to 912. Government also ensured that, where necessary, remaining powers had sufficient additional safeguards (added via legislation) to ensure appropriate use of the powers in future.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/powers-of-entry
See Kaliningrad, for an example of the finished product.
If some sources are to be believed he was looking at mass deporting the non-Russian population of Ukraine.
Xi Jinping's China has a birthrate of exactly 1 per woman, the one child policy has come horribly true in the most ironic way, leading to an imminent demographic crisis. China maybe does not HAVE enough Han Chinese to flood Tibet
After my glorious procession around Japan, Korea and the Pihilippines a slow Tube through "Northfields" would have been bathetic and intolerable. So I caught a fast black and as it was so early it was indeed fast. And pricey. Fuck it. I haven't spent a penny of my own money for weeks
Hamas called for the liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea. Elsewhere they said that Jews should not be allowed to live in a free Palestine.
In the most generous interpretation Hamas is calling for ethnic cleansing. Likud was not.
No
Osterley House is stunning.
But I've also been to Hounslow
police, and and if they persist then you ask them for name, shoulder number, station, and under what powers they are are stopping/disturbing you, and if at home whether they have a warrant.
However these odd new categories seem to break that down. The guidance around NCHIs is written as if the subject is being informed because (and only because) their personal data is being processed within the meaning of GDPR. However it seems like this process often presents as the police confronting someone over their behaviour. It’s all a bit off.
Might be easiest to just have a GDPR carve out, never tell anyone they are mentioned in an NCHI, ensure they can’t affect employment or be declared in court, and move on. Those that want to count them are happy, the police can use them as a soft form of intelligence if they want to (clogging up their systems and not adding very much), and they will have no impact on anyone’s life.
He was quite a proud Georgian. There is evidence that one reason Tbilisi is such a beautiful and marvellous survival, to this day, is because Stalin ordered that his Georgian capital be spared the Soviet demolitions that wiped out old towns in many other ethnic minority USSR statelets
Everybody talk about… pop music! 😌
I don't know whether she or the Police are being accurate there, and she could still have said that she didn't want to give a voluntary interview and they could either arrest her on suspicion of an offence or deal with it by correspondence.
It does seem to me a bit much is being made of it. Police may well have over-reacted to the nature of the incident, but equally it's hardly surprising if a complaint is made about you that the Police would knock on your door and ask to have a word about it.
I was talking to a political writer in Korea about their birthrates, and he pointed out that east Asia, esp China is racing away with robotics so as to avoid this crisis. And China in particular really is way ahead of any other nation, maybe even the USA, in most forms of robotics. They have more self drive cars buses etc, they are taking more risks, they are producing some amazing robotic forms
Check this Chinese wheeled robot dog (apols for the horrific music)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL833P0Vino
Even in my posh Seoul hotel they had a wheeled robot quietly loading plates and taking them into the kitchen, making happy beepy noises as it did so
The current guidance around NCHI's is not in compliance with the law. The police have been told but in their arrogance, aided and abetted by politicians, they ignore the law.
This is not unusual for the police but it is very troubling. The advice remains: never engage with the police on this topic - other than through a lawyer who knows their stuff.
I see there was a "track defect" on the Heathrow Express/Crosslink routes that has now been mended, not even a quarter into the weekend.
They have said her report is in error.
She needs to make a complaint to IOPC, in addition to yelling her head off in her echo chamber.
My view is that there are important points here, as I mentioned yesterday a couple of times. But, if the report from Pearson is accurate (and that strand of the right are currently given to hyperbole as they have nothing else to work with), it is about overreach and maybe police amateurishness not Keir Starmer and political oppression of elderly white people. A framing as "free speech" is nonsensical.
It is not new; I've been following this type of overreach since about 2000, and there have been 6 or 7 lots of it around different obsessions at different times. One has been Blair's massive overuse of Section 44 searches around 2007-2009, another was harassment of street photographers as 'terrorists', another was around a moral panic about 'paedos' everywhere, and more recently we have had certain Trans Activists who have abused police attention to their issue as a lever to use police as an outsourced harassment service to get at people who disagree with them (Caroline Farrow has been one victim).
When we were dealing with overdone "cease and desist" letters from bastard lawyers such as Carter-Fuck back in 2007 or so (cf the one that closed down Boris Johnson's website by mistake because a cowardly internet host pulled the plug on a whole server *), we campaigned on a cross-party basis.
Campaigning on a cross-party basis from principle is what is needed now on this, but the current self-obsessed Right are as thick as planks.
* https://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/sep/21/digitalmedia.politicsandthemedia
Anything else and they should write to me. If they can knock on my door they can send me a letter. Knocking on the door is deliberately confrontational.
I don't believe that the police will publish that without request / consent or as evidence.
*sob*
And yet this is slightly unfair. I can only play the hand I am dealt, and I play it as best I can. You don't know how much I yearn for the rich, fulfilled, poetically intense and spiritually dramatic life of a retired middlebrow Lib Dem voting quack from suburban Leicester who has done nothing of note in his entire life, and yet - it was not to be, we cannot ALL be you - so I must make do and mend
How can I phrase this politely. I get the feeling he would not waste away to skeletal death if you took off an entire weekend...
I'd argue that just the same arguments between the "realists" and the moralists existed then as now.
It's just that the scale of population displacement resulting from war in the 1940s - particularly as a proportion of the then world population - was an order of magnitude greater than now (at least 100m in China alone, for example).
As far as Eastern Europe is concerned, the politics were complicated, of course, by many on the left having sympathy with Soviet Communism, which obscured for them the brutal reality - coupled with what was seen as complicity with the Nazis during the Holocaust.
Unless we're about to experience worldwide trauma on the same scale (admittedly not completely impossible), it's not a good comparison.
Perhaps not a good time to tempt Fate
Worldwide communism required that other ethnic states could sustain communism (which in the case of Eastern Europe meant killing or exiling to Siberia the awkward elements).
Poland's postwar borders were designed by Stalin explicitly to ensure an ethnic Polish state, for example.
A "sign with ambition" on the National Cycle Network.
Real Gaz on a proper bike: gazza_d@toot.bike @gazza-d.bsky.social
As it's apparently #fingerpost Friday, I do like signs with ambition
https://bsky.app/profile/gazza-d.bsky.social/post/3lay4fdkyum2l
It's no big sacrifice anyway. We manage the odd afternoon out.
Stalin's long term goal might have been the elimination of Polishness entirely
The irony is that in the long run Stalin was right, it was the Poles who rebelled against communism most effectively - Pope John Paul, Solidarnosc, etc - and thereby destroyed it in the end
God Bless Poland! A great country
That’s a significant brain drain that we could potentially be in the bidding for. Though Canada is the most obvious destination, as
are the richer Latin American and Asian source countries.
Nonetheless perhaps an opportunity for the city:
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-daily-telegraph-saturday/20241116/281530821557220
One of the cats did acquit itself well yesterday, chasing away the velociraptor-like heron that was casing the joint around the fishpond.
To get those savings onto people’s bills, we need market reform.
https://x.com/OctopusEnergy/status/1857191347788145022
Yes, I was just kidding a bit with Leon there. We could do weekends away without too much of a problem.
Further, liberalism being unable to deal with 'numerous intractable issues' it is encountering may be true, but that may be a reality of the human condition - the thing Matthew Parris compares with the unopenable pistachio nuts at the end of the party. They are still there because you can't open them. Some non liberals are remarkably bad at running countries too.
Also, the only other government available is a Tory one. Is there any evidence it is prepared any more than anyone else for what is coming. And what would you do in Labour's position?
But I actually think that, though there will be a few deportations, the number will probably be in the tens or hundreds of thousands rather than millions, because of all the logistical and legal problems, if they manage to deport anyone at all. And many of them will probably try to jump the border again the moment they get the chance. It won't be the first time that Trump has talked big and delivered nothing but disruption and chaos.
Labour have a truly massive majority. It’s virtually Blair levels after 1997.
Now I know after 2019 it seemed improbable that Labour would come back in one term but it took a global pandemic and three PMs.
I’d say the chances of that happening again are slim.
So I think it’s between a small Labour majority and a hung parliament at the moment.
Earlier I mentioned the Caroline Farrow case, where a spurious report by a trans activist over a tweet lead to Surrey police attending her house and seizing all her devices for "evidence", including the iPad with bedtime stories for her autistic son.
It took a legal action and several years to make them back down and pay costs - legal action is I think continuing.
I'm not much on Caroline's political tradition - she's essentially a fairly traditionist Catholic (I *think* RC as her Vicar husband is iirc in the Ordinariate - a structure in the RC denomination for Anglican Vicars who transfer), with various affiliations around that.
But overreach and amateurishness because of overdone emphases are an experience across politics.
Her brief account:
https://x.com/CF_Farrow/status/1793178685190570335
https://x.com/CF_Farrow/status/1857706465680638432
The Coalition, of course, proved that it can happen with a two and a half party situation, but it's way less likely.
Edited extra bit: anyway, I must be off, interesting as demography is to discuss.
“It’s poppycock. They haven’t done the sums.”
Farmers believe the government is lying about the number of farms that will be impacted by changes to inheritance tax, says @1GarethWynJones.
for quite a while longer.
(As an example, Eric Priebke, who ordered the execution of 335 Italian men in 1944, in retaliation for partisans killing 33 German police, was ultimately, only found guilty of five murders. Back in 1944, it would have been in accord with the Law of Armed Conflict to execute adult Italian males at a ratio of ten to one, in retaliation for the acitons of partisans. Had he limited himself to 330 executions, he would have been acquitted.)
"...In an age of scientism, it was predictable that they should turn to numbers for reassurance that the battle could be won. With all their high-tech mathematical models, the pollsters proved no better oracles than they were in 2016. The hosts of “knowledge workers” mass-produced by ideologically captured universities were exposed as knowing nothing. The future of this class is bleak..."
I've been banging on about the limits of models for some time. They are a tool for deciding between two or more options, they are not more than that. A model that tells you whether it is going to rain tomorrow is a tool for deciding whether to choose an umbrella. A model that tells you who is going to win the popular vote is a tool for deciding who to bet on. Jumping from that to "this is what is going to happen!" is a mistake and should always be abandoned when real data comes in. There is no point in using a model to see if it is raining when you have a window.
But it is an irrelevance. With the exception of the group who are both substantial in assets and have kept possession in the hands of a person now unlikely to live 7 years (which needs special attention) the people to talk to are not farmers but financial advisers, rural lawyers and accountants, all of whom have lots of experience of dealing with this stuff with intelligent planning. Like everyone else has always had to do.
Footnote. A rural lawyer tells me that the fuss about farms means that loads of privately owned non-farm businesses have failed to spot the impact of the new IHT rules on them.
There were 2 things to go on beforehand that could have pointed you either way. Ralston's analysis of NV early data said Trump. Selzer's "gold standard" old school poll of IA said Harris. The NV steer proved the one to follow.
But this ...
"The hosts of “knowledge workers” mass-produced by ideologically captured universities were exposed as knowing nothing."
Sorry, that is just grandstanding wank.