Marf delivers her take on the Trump/Putin phone call – politicalbetting.com

Andy_JS said:

What's the food like in Uruguay?

Andy_JS said:

"Stats for Lefties 🍉🏳️‍⚧️
@LeftieStats

🔵 CON 25% (-)
🔴 LAB 25% (-4)
🟣 REF 23% (+1)
🟠 LD 11% (-)
🟢 GRN 9% (+1)

Via @DeltapollUK, 14-17 Mar (+/- vs 17-20 Jan)"

https://x.com/LeftieStats/status/1902448125190496346

Scott_xP said:

How fucked is the US? part 45584763425474534 of an ongoing series...

DOGE illegally occupied a private building by coercing the security guards

Marisa Kabas

Wow. Judge Howell is worried that if she orders DOGE to leave the USIP building it could turn into an “armed standoff” over unwillingness to vacate, and points out law enforcement has shown willingness to help DOGE. Asks if we’ll need foreign mediators to come in.

https://bsky.app/profile/marisakabas.bsky.social/post/3lkqyjeozok2x

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

kle4 said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kjh said:

kle4 said:

kjh said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

From last thread, directed to @kinabalu :

So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.

You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party

How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!

If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?

There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point

There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.

But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?

C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.

Hypocrisy always gets called out.

See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.

Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.

Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.

But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.

So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….

Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.

So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.

I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.

If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.

If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.

Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?

I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.

Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?

One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.

I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.

There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.

I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.

Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.

You have principles or you don't sorry.
If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles

No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".

They aren't views and opinions they are absolutes I live by.
You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me

There is a rather simple solution to this, which is a classic case of irregular verb approach.

Since you are human you must have not lived up to some view at some point. However you maintain you would not do so on your principles. Ergo, you probably have views and opinions you have not lived up to, and this is just a dispute on what you regard as people being overdramatic by describing their views as principles.

If a principle is just something people never bend on then no-one has ever violated their principles, since by definition they cannot.

So far I have never violated one of my principles, not saying it couldn't happen I only have a few however

I have never struck a woman
I have never raped
I have always payed full tax without seeking to avoid it
I have never killed anyone when maiming was sufficient
I have never maimed someone when injuring them was sufficient
I have never injured someone when a harsh word was enough
I have never taken from someone things they need
I have always helped the less fortunate where I can

These are the principles I live by and yes not violated one as yet

The highly disturbing implication of that sentence is that you have decided, on occasion, that maiming was not sufficient - and killed someone.

I dont see why you see it as disturbing please explain

Well, I'm not too keen on people going around killing other people at random.

Unless you were a soldier.

Well the point was you didn't do it at random only when the previous options were not viable

I am curious why you felt I promoted random killing?

Because I have got through my entire 42 years without managing to feel the need to kill,* maim or even seriously injure anybody, so I'm genuinely surprised anyone else *has* felt that need.

*By a remarkable effort of will, this even includes Amanda Spielman.

See my reply to foxy been in the latter situation

Foxy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Looks like I won't be allowed to visit America for at least the next four years.

"This measure was apparently taken by the American authorities because the researcher's phone contained exchanges with colleagues and friends in which he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy"

When do we start to call this by its name? A French researcher has his phone and laptop confiscated and is refused entry because of personal messages found in a "random search" at the border criticizing Trump.

https://x.com/shashj/status/1902446261824807412

Was the Frenchman rather swarthy of complexion perchance?

It does sound as if Constable Savage is alive and well, and working for ICE.

https://youtu.be/xGxjnD42iw0?feature=shared

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

kle4 said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kjh said:

kle4 said:

kjh said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

From last thread, directed to @kinabalu :

So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.

You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party

How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!

If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?

There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point

There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.

But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?

C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.

Hypocrisy always gets called out.

See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.

Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.

Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.

But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.

So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….

Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.

So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.

I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.

If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.

If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.

Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?

I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.

Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?

One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.

I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.

There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.

I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.

Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.

You have principles or you don't sorry.
If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles

No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".

They aren't views and opinions they are absolutes I live by.
You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me

There is a rather simple solution to this, which is a classic case of irregular verb approach.

Since you are human you must have not lived up to some view at some point. However you maintain you would not do so on your principles. Ergo, you probably have views and opinions you have not lived up to, and this is just a dispute on what you regard as people being overdramatic by describing their views as principles.

If a principle is just something people never bend on then no-one has ever violated their principles, since by definition they cannot.

So far I have never violated one of my principles, not saying it couldn't happen I only have a few however

I have never struck a woman
I have never raped
I have always payed full tax without seeking to avoid it
I have never killed anyone when maiming was sufficient
I have never maimed someone when injuring them was sufficient
I have never injured someone when a harsh word was enough
I have never taken from someone things they need
I have always helped the less fortunate where I can

These are the principles I live by and yes not violated one as yet

The highly disturbing implication of that sentence is that you have decided, on occasion, that maiming was not sufficient - and killed someone.

My principles and rules for life are simpler.

1) Never drink straight from a bottle. Insist on a glass.

2) Never wear sportswear except when participating in sport.

3) At social events, always spend some time talking to the oldest person in the room.

That pretty much covers it really.

Those principles are great but fairly specific to social functions

All life is a social function.

Well there are social functions like the local hospital dinner dance

and social functions

such as you walk into an alley to find five guys gang raping a girl

I suspect that your principles work for the former but not the latter

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

kle4 said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kjh said:

kle4 said:

kjh said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

From last thread, directed to @kinabalu :

So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.

You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party

How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!

If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?

There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point

There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.

But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?

C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.

Hypocrisy always gets called out.

See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.

Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.

Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.

But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.

So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….

Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.

So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.

I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.

If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.

If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.

Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?

I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.

Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?

One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.

I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.

There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.

I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.

Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.

You have principles or you don't sorry.
If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles

No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".

They aren't views and opinions they are absolutes I live by.
You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me

There is a rather simple solution to this, which is a classic case of irregular verb approach.

Since you are human you must have not lived up to some view at some point. However you maintain you would not do so on your principles. Ergo, you probably have views and opinions you have not lived up to, and this is just a dispute on what you regard as people being overdramatic by describing their views as principles.

If a principle is just something people never bend on then no-one has ever violated their principles, since by definition they cannot.

So far I have never violated one of my principles, not saying it couldn't happen I only have a few however

I have never struck a woman
I have never raped
I have always payed full tax without seeking to avoid it
I have never killed anyone when maiming was sufficient
I have never maimed someone when injuring them was sufficient
I have never injured someone when a harsh word was enough
I have never taken from someone things they need
I have always helped the less fortunate where I can

These are the principles I live by and yes not violated one as yet

The highly disturbing implication of that sentence is that you have decided, on occasion, that maiming was not sufficient - and killed someone.

My principles and rules for life are simpler.

1) Never drink straight from a bottle. Insist on a glass.

2) Never wear sportswear except when participating in sport.

3) At social events, always spend some time talking to the oldest person in the room.

That pretty much covers it really.

Those principles are great but fairly specific to social functions

All life is a social function.

Well there are social functions like the local hospital dinner dance

and social functions

such as you walk into an alley to find five guys gang raping a girl

I suspect that your principles work for the former but not the latter

I don't think any of my rules would be invalidated in such a situation, not that I have been in it.

I would risk assess the situation to determine the best way of minimising harm and maximising successful prosecution of the individuals. I have training in non-violent de-escalation of threatening situations.

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

kle4 said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kjh said:

kle4 said:

kjh said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

From last thread, directed to @kinabalu :

So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.

You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party

How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!

If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?

There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point

There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.

But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?

C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.

Hypocrisy always gets called out.

See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.

Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.

Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.

But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.

So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….

Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.

So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.

I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.

If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.

If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.

Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?

I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.

Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?

One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.

I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.

There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.

I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.

Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.

You have principles or you don't sorry.
If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles

No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".

They aren't views and opinions they are absolutes I live by.
You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me

There is a rather simple solution to this, which is a classic case of irregular verb approach.

Since you are human you must have not lived up to some view at some point. However you maintain you would not do so on your principles. Ergo, you probably have views and opinions you have not lived up to, and this is just a dispute on what you regard as people being overdramatic by describing their views as principles.

If a principle is just something people never bend on then no-one has ever violated their principles, since by definition they cannot.

So far I have never violated one of my principles, not saying it couldn't happen I only have a few however

I have never struck a woman
I have never raped
I have always payed full tax without seeking to avoid it
I have never killed anyone when maiming was sufficient
I have never maimed someone when injuring them was sufficient
I have never injured someone when a harsh word was enough
I have never taken from someone things they need
I have always helped the less fortunate where I can

These are the principles I live by and yes not violated one as yet

The highly disturbing implication of that sentence is that you have decided, on occasion, that maiming was not sufficient - and killed someone.

My principles and rules for life are simpler.

1) Never drink straight from a bottle. Insist on a glass.

2) Never wear sportswear except when participating in sport.

3) At social events, always spend some time talking to the oldest person in the room.

That pretty much covers it really.

Those principles are great but fairly specific to social functions

All life is a social function.

Well there are social functions like the local hospital dinner dance

and social functions

such as you walk into an alley to find five guys gang raping a girl

I suspect that your principles work for the former but not the latter

I don't think any of my rules would be invalidated in such a situation, not that I have been in it.

I would risk assess the situation to determine the best way of minimising harm and maximising successful prosecution of the individuals. I have training in non-violent de-escalation of threatening situations.

Yes you have training in deescalating a gang rape so they all go away embarressed.....sorry dont believe it

Pagan2 said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

kle4 said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kjh said:

kle4 said:

kjh said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

From last thread, directed to @kinabalu :

So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.

You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party

How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!

If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?

There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point

There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.

But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?

C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.

Hypocrisy always gets called out.

See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.

Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.

Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.

But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.

So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….

Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.

So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.

I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.

If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.

If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.

Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?

I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.

Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?

One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.

I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.

There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.

I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.

Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.

You have principles or you don't sorry.
If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles

No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".

They aren't views and opinions they are absolutes I live by.
You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me

There is a rather simple solution to this, which is a classic case of irregular verb approach.

Since you are human you must have not lived up to some view at some point. However you maintain you would not do so on your principles. Ergo, you probably have views and opinions you have not lived up to, and this is just a dispute on what you regard as people being overdramatic by describing their views as principles.

If a principle is just something people never bend on then no-one has ever violated their principles, since by definition they cannot.

So far I have never violated one of my principles, not saying it couldn't happen I only have a few however

I have never struck a woman
I have never raped
I have always payed full tax without seeking to avoid it
I have never killed anyone when maiming was sufficient
I have never maimed someone when injuring them was sufficient
I have never injured someone when a harsh word was enough
I have never taken from someone things they need
I have always helped the less fortunate where I can

These are the principles I live by and yes not violated one as yet

The highly disturbing implication of that sentence is that you have decided, on occasion, that maiming was not sufficient - and killed someone.

My principles and rules for life are simpler.

1) Never drink straight from a bottle. Insist on a glass.

2) Never wear sportswear except when participating in sport.

3) At social events, always spend some time talking to the oldest person in the room.

That pretty much covers it really.

Those principles are great but fairly specific to social functions

All life is a social function.

Well there are social functions like the local hospital dinner dance

and social functions

such as you walk into an alley to find five guys gang raping a girl

I suspect that your principles work for the former but not the latter

I don't think any of my rules would be invalidated in such a situation, not that I have been in it.

I would risk assess the situation to determine the best way of minimising harm and maximising successful prosecution of the individuals. I have training in non-violent de-escalation of threatening situations.

Yes you have training in deescalating a gang rape so they all go away embarressed.....sorry dont believe it

This a problem as well with pb not only are most rich they also have little experience of the worse streets in town

ohnotnow said:

Foxy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Looks like I won't be allowed to visit America for at least the next four years.

"This measure was apparently taken by the American authorities because the researcher's phone contained exchanges with colleagues and friends in which he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy"

When do we start to call this by its name? A French researcher has his phone and laptop confiscated and is refused entry because of personal messages found in a "random search" at the border criticizing Trump.

https://x.com/shashj/status/1902446261824807412

Was the Frenchman rather swarthy of complexion perchance?

It does sound as if Constable Savage is alive and well, and working for ICE.

https://youtu.be/xGxjnD42iw0?feature=shared

I was just thinking the other day that I'm surprised that 'swarthy' hasn't made a comeback in the Reform era.

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

What's the food like in Uruguay?

Bit dull, I’m afraid - like nearly all of Latin America

If you like hefty sausages and nice steaks, day after day, you’re in heaven

I’ve just written a Kanpper’s Gazette article on why the food in the ex-Iberian colonies is almost universally dreary (the Philippines is the one place in SE Asia with shite food, in an area otherwise blessed)

But they do have the wine. Ah, the wine

Andy_JS said:

"Stats for Lefties 🍉🏳️‍⚧️
@LeftieStats

🔵 CON 25% (-)
🔴 LAB 25% (-4)
🟣 REF 23% (+1)
🟠 LD 11% (-)
🟢 GRN 9% (+1)

Via @DeltapollUK, 14-17 Mar (+/- vs 17-20 Jan)"

https://x.com/LeftieStats/status/1902448125190496346

Scott_xP said:

@nytimes.com‬

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has suggested allowing bird flu to spread, so as to identify birds that may be immune. Veterinary scientists said that would be inhumane, dangerous and have enormous economic consequences.

Scott_xP said:

@nytimes.com‬

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has suggested allowing bird flu to spread, so as to identify birds that may be immune. Veterinary scientists said that would be inhumane, dangerous and have enormous economic consequences.

Foxy said:

carnforth said:

Andy_JS said:

"Stats for Lefties 🍉🏳️‍⚧️
@LeftieStats

🔵 CON 25% (-)
🔴 LAB 25% (-4)
🟣 REF 23% (+1)
🟠 LD 11% (-)
🟢 GRN 9% (+1)

Via @DeltapollUK, 14-17 Mar (+/- vs 17-20 Jan)"

https://x.com/LeftieStats/status/1902448125190496346

Centre Right 73%.







(I kid, I kid...)

When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the People's Stick.

Mikhail Bakunin

Leon said:

viewcode said:

rottenborough said:

Wow. Hodges pulls no punches as he tears into Starmer's administration over welfare:

Remember what people were told they were voting for last July: ‘Change’. And what were they presented with yesterday? The spectacle of a Labour minister – a Labour minister – aggressively confronting anyone who had the gall to question whether demanding that the most vulnerable in society again make the greatest sacrifices was really morally or economically sustainable.

A storm is coming. The British people have had enough. They are not going to tolerate another parade of ministers in tight grey suits, sporting red – rather than blue – ties, telling them those in most need have to do with less.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14514899/DAN-HODGES-Labour-minister-Newsnight-Keir-Starmer.html

As I keep pointing out, Blairism DOES NOT WORK in the 2020s. We tried corporatism in 1945-1979: it had its day and then it died. We tried neoliberalism in 1980-2019: it had its day and then it died. This warmed-over rotting-fish neoliberalism is not working and requires Labour to act out of character: if it isn't there to defend the old and the sick, what the hell is it there for? When is the "taxing the rich" bit due to kick in? They aren't going to do that because Blairism could afford not to do so, but these days you have to.

Honestly Morgan McSweeney, if you read PB, please do the bloody maths, yes?

You can’t tax the rich any more because the rich are ever more mobile, as Covid and WFH and the interweb have shown

Britain is already suffering a profound exodus of rich people, more than any other nation on earth. At the same time sunnier places without terror attacks, migration nightmares and machete-wielding Rolex robbers are attracting these rich people (often the young) with digital nomad visas and very low taxes

The Treasury is well aware of this, hence Labour backtracking on non doms and desperately trying to change its rhetoric on wealth

If you want our tax base to entirely disappear, go ahead an impose a wealth tax, and see how much rain mobile wealthy people are willing to tolerate in return for, uhm, ah, the brilliance of the NHS?

Luckyguy1983 said:

...

Leon said:

viewcode said:

rottenborough said:

Wow. Hodges pulls no punches as he tears into Starmer's administration over welfare:

Remember what people were told they were voting for last July: ‘Change’. And what were they presented with yesterday? The spectacle of a Labour minister – a Labour minister – aggressively confronting anyone who had the gall to question whether demanding that the most vulnerable in society again make the greatest sacrifices was really morally or economically sustainable.

A storm is coming. The British people have had enough. They are not going to tolerate another parade of ministers in tight grey suits, sporting red – rather than blue – ties, telling them those in most need have to do with less.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14514899/DAN-HODGES-Labour-minister-Newsnight-Keir-Starmer.html

As I keep pointing out, Blairism DOES NOT WORK in the 2020s. We tried corporatism in 1945-1979: it had its day and then it died. We tried neoliberalism in 1980-2019: it had its day and then it died. This warmed-over rotting-fish neoliberalism is not working and requires Labour to act out of character: if it isn't there to defend the old and the sick, what the hell is it there for? When is the "taxing the rich" bit due to kick in? They aren't going to do that because Blairism could afford not to do so, but these days you have to.

Honestly Morgan McSweeney, if you read PB, please do the bloody maths, yes?

You can’t tax the rich any more because the rich are ever more mobile, as Covid and WFH and the interweb have shown

Britain is already suffering a profound exodus of rich people, more than any other nation on earth. At the same time sunnier places without terror attacks, migration nightmares and machete-wielding Rolex robbers are attracting these rich people (often the young) with digital nomad visas and very low taxes

The Treasury is well aware of this, hence Labour backtracking on non doms and desperately trying to change its rhetoric on wealth

If you want our tax base to entirely disappear, go ahead an impose a wealth tax, and see how much rain mobile wealthy people are willing to tolerate in return for, uhm, ah, the brilliance of the NHS?

I don't know whether Viewcode thinks he is being insightful with this facile critique of 'neoliberalism' but it is utter tripe.

Scott_xP said:

Brexit looks even dumber today than it did yesterday, part 985384354735474547 in an ongoing series...

@MatinaStevis

SCOOP: Canada is in advanced talks to participate in the new EU military industry project, highlighting how traditional US allies are teaming up to Trump-proof their military production. The budding deal would see Canada get EU contracts to build in Canadian factories.

@faisalislam

Very interesting - this is the new EU defence procurement cooperation project that for now the UK is not joining, but Canada is joining, after new PM Carney diplomatic push…

viewcode said:

Leon said:

viewcode said:

rottenborough said:

Wow. Hodges pulls no punches as he tears into Starmer's administration over welfare:

Remember what people were told they were voting for last July: ‘Change’. And what were they presented with yesterday? The spectacle of a Labour minister – a Labour minister – aggressively confronting anyone who had the gall to question whether demanding that the most vulnerable in society again make the greatest sacrifices was really morally or economically sustainable.

A storm is coming. The British people have had enough. They are not going to tolerate another parade of ministers in tight grey suits, sporting red – rather than blue – ties, telling them those in most need have to do with less.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14514899/DAN-HODGES-Labour-minister-Newsnight-Keir-Starmer.html

As I keep pointing out, Blairism DOES NOT WORK in the 2020s. We tried corporatism in 1945-1979: it had its day and then it died. We tried neoliberalism in 1980-2019: it had its day and then it died. This warmed-over rotting-fish neoliberalism is not working and requires Labour to act out of character: if it isn't there to defend the old and the sick, what the hell is it there for? When is the "taxing the rich" bit due to kick in? They aren't going to do that because Blairism could afford not to do so, but these days you have to.

Honestly Morgan McSweeney, if you read PB, please do the bloody maths, yes?

You can’t tax the rich any more because the rich are ever more mobile, as Covid and WFH and the interweb have shown

Britain is already suffering a profound exodus of rich people, more than any other nation on earth. At the same time sunnier places without terror attacks, migration nightmares and machete-wielding Rolex robbers are attracting these rich people (often the young) with digital nomad visas and very low taxes

The Treasury is well aware of this, hence Labour backtracking on non doms and desperately trying to change its rhetoric on wealth

If you want our tax base to entirely disappear, go ahead an impose a wealth tax, and see how much rain mobile wealthy people are willing to tolerate in return for, uhm, ah, the brilliance of the NHS?

You have to tax something.

You can't run a nation state on debt indefinitely and I don't care what Modern Monetary Theory says. If you can't tax people, tax land. If you can't tax land, tax houses. If you can't tax houses, tax luxury goods. Stop thinking you can enjoy an entire economy and culture and hundreds of nuclear warheads to avenge your death based on nothing but more and more interest payments and more and more debt. It isn't working.

Nigelb said:

Scott_xP said:

Brexit looks even dumber today than it did yesterday, part 985384354735474547 in an ongoing series...

@MatinaStevis

SCOOP: Canada is in advanced talks to participate in the new EU military industry project, highlighting how traditional US allies are teaming up to Trump-proof their military production. The budding deal would see Canada get EU contracts to build in Canadian factories.

@faisalislam

Very interesting - this is the new EU defence procurement cooperation project that for now the UK is not joining, but Canada is joining, after new PM Carney diplomatic push…

Why is the UK not signing up ?
It would be good for both security and business.

Is this some misguided attempt to stay in with Trump ?

Scott_xP said:

Musk is currently donating money to GOP senators who said they will impeach judges

@joshuaerlich.bsky.social‬

increasingly convinced that DOGE isn't so much an office of the white house or a federal advisory committee as much as it is a criminal organization in the RICO sense

Leon said:

To raise the tone above the likes of @kinabalu and @kjh - this is why my tour guide was so amazing

He met me at the cathedral and we spent a pleasant couple of hours touring pleasant, safe, unexciting Montevideo

Then there was a thunderstorm and we were forced inside a very atmospheric old cafe (Caffe Braziliano). 19th century. Great coffee. At this point he opened up about his prior life in the Uruguayan army - mainly in their UN peacekeeping force (I had no idea Uruguay did so much peacekeeping)

By the time we got to the famous old market in the port for a famous Uruguayan barbecue lunch we’d bonded so much he admitted that not only had he spent years in the Congo and Georgia (where he was held hostage at gunpoint for a week) in his UN mission, he was also in Rwanda (again for the UN) where he witnessed, personally, the entire genocide from before it began to the aftermath - seeing the killings, driving through corpses, everything. He showed me the evidence and discussed how it changed him

Maybe the most compelling single hour of conversation I’ve ever had. To arrive BEFORE that genocide and leave AFTER. What does that do to you? He tried to explain and he was very articulate

To accompany this extraordinary conversation we had excellent steaks, chorizo, provolone, a good bottle of Tannat red wine and this secret Uruguayan wine they call “half and half”



This is one reason I love my job

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

To raise the tone above the likes of @kinabalu and @kjh - this is why my tour guide was so amazing

He met me at the cathedral and we spent a pleasant couple of hours touring pleasant, safe, unexciting Montevideo

Then there was a thunderstorm and we were forced inside a very atmospheric old cafe (Caffe Braziliano). 19th century. Great coffee. At this point he opened up about his prior life in the Uruguayan army - mainly in their UN peacekeeping force (I had no idea Uruguay did so much peacekeeping)

By the time we got to the famous old market in the port for a famous Uruguayan barbecue lunch we’d bonded so much he admitted that not only had he spent years in the Congo and Georgia (where he was held hostage at gunpoint for a week) in his UN mission, he was also in Rwanda (again for the UN) where he witnessed, personally, the entire genocide from before it began to the aftermath - seeing the killings, driving through corpses, everything. He showed me the evidence and discussed how it changed him

Maybe the most compelling single hour of conversation I’ve ever had. To arrive BEFORE that genocide and leave AFTER. What does that do to you? He tried to explain and he was very articulate

To accompany this extraordinary conversation we had excellent steaks, chorizo, provolone, a good bottle of Tannat red wine and this secret Uruguayan wine they call “half and half”



This is one reason I love my job

Interesting story (though why the unnecessary dig at a couple of PBers ?).

I didn't know there were Uruguayan members of the UN forces in Rwanda during the genocide.
They are not mentioned here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roméo_Dallaire
I'd be interested to hear more of his story.

Cyclefree said:

Trump now attacking U.K. law firms.

https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/trump-attacks-global-law-firms-as-top-uk-names-face-dei-probe

carnforth said:

Nigelb said:

Scott_xP said:

Brexit looks even dumber today than it did yesterday, part 985384354735474547 in an ongoing series...

@MatinaStevis

SCOOP: Canada is in advanced talks to participate in the new EU military industry project, highlighting how traditional US allies are teaming up to Trump-proof their military production. The budding deal would see Canada get EU contracts to build in Canadian factories.

@faisalislam

Very interesting - this is the new EU defence procurement cooperation project that for now the UK is not joining, but Canada is joining, after new PM Carney diplomatic push…

Why is the UK not signing up ?
It would be good for both security and business.

Is this some misguided attempt to stay in with Trump ?

The last I heard we had a defence deal ready to go but the French wanted fishing rights included in it.

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2025/feb/06/fishing-rights-not-derail-eu-uk-security-pact-european-council-president

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

To raise the tone above the likes of @kinabalu and @kjh - this is why my tour guide was so amazing

He met me at the cathedral and we spent a pleasant couple of hours touring pleasant, safe, unexciting Montevideo

Then there was a thunderstorm and we were forced inside a very atmospheric old cafe (Caffe Braziliano). 19th century. Great coffee. At this point he opened up about his prior life in the Uruguayan army - mainly in their UN peacekeeping force (I had no idea Uruguay did so much peacekeeping)

By the time we got to the famous old market in the port for a famous Uruguayan barbecue lunch we’d bonded so much he admitted that not only had he spent years in the Congo and Georgia (where he was held hostage at gunpoint for a week) in his UN mission, he was also in Rwanda (again for the UN) where he witnessed, personally, the entire genocide from before it began to the aftermath - seeing the killings, driving through corpses, everything. He showed me the evidence and discussed how it changed him

Maybe the most compelling single hour of conversation I’ve ever had. To arrive BEFORE that genocide and leave AFTER. What does that do to you? He tried to explain and he was very articulate

To accompany this extraordinary conversation we had excellent steaks, chorizo, provolone, a good bottle of Tannat red wine and this secret Uruguayan wine they call “half and half”



This is one reason I love my job

Interesting story (though why the unnecessary dig at a couple of PBers ?).

I didn't know there were Uruguayan members of the UN forces in Rwanda during the genocide.
They are not mentioned here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roméo_Dallaire
I'd be interested to hear more of his story.

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

To raise the tone above the likes of @kinabalu and @kjh - this is why my tour guide was so amazing

He met me at the cathedral and we spent a pleasant couple of hours touring pleasant, safe, unexciting Montevideo

Then there was a thunderstorm and we were forced inside a very atmospheric old cafe (Caffe Braziliano). 19th century. Great coffee. At this point he opened up about his prior life in the Uruguayan army - mainly in their UN peacekeeping force (I had no idea Uruguay did so much peacekeeping)

By the time we got to the famous old market in the port for a famous Uruguayan barbecue lunch we’d bonded so much he admitted that not only had he spent years in the Congo and Georgia (where he was held hostage at gunpoint for a week) in his UN mission, he was also in Rwanda (again for the UN) where he witnessed, personally, the entire genocide from before it began to the aftermath - seeing the killings, driving through corpses, everything. He showed me the evidence and discussed how it changed him

Maybe the most compelling single hour of conversation I’ve ever had. To arrive BEFORE that genocide and leave AFTER. What does that do to you? He tried to explain and he was very articulate

To accompany this extraordinary conversation we had excellent steaks, chorizo, provolone, a good bottle of Tannat red wine and this secret Uruguayan wine they call “half and half”



This is one reason I love my job

Interesting story (though why the unnecessary dig at a couple of PBers ?).

I didn't know there were Uruguayan members of the UN forces in Rwanda during the genocide.
They are not mentioned here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roméo_Dallaire
I'd be interested to hear more of his story.

60 seconds with Google.....

https://peacekeeping.un.org/sites/default/files/past/unamirF.htm

"CONTRIBUTORS OF MILITARY AND CIVILIAN POLICE PERSONNEL
Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chad, Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Germany, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, India, Jordan, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Zambia and Zimbabwe"

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1902440135746318561

This week I ran a focus group in Grimsby for @channel4news.

The mood amongst voters was nothing short of apocalyptic. On migration, welfare, and the future of Britain.

No party leader was seen as truly capable of leading Britain out of a mess they felt was caused above all by mass immigration.

Rich in anger and conspiracy theories, it was also the most American of the English focus groups I’ve ever conducted.

Cyclefree said:

Trump now attacking U.K. law firms.

https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/trump-attacks-global-law-firms-as-top-uk-names-face-dei-probe

Big_G_NorthWales said:

nico67 said:

It’s incredibly difficult to remove a federal judge but the main concern now is that the disgraceful rhetoric from Musk and the rest of the Trump arselickers leads to even more threats of violence against judges and they may begin to fear making proper decisions based on law .

I genuinely think it is all over for anyone who tries to defy Trump by using the law

Whoever thought America would become an autocracy run by a narcissistic President with billionaire unelected bullies

Nunu3 said:

viewcode said:

Leon said:

viewcode said:

rottenborough said:

Wow. Hodges pulls no punches as he tears into Starmer's administration over welfare:

Remember what people were told they were voting for last July: ‘Change’. And what were they presented with yesterday? The spectacle of a Labour minister – a Labour minister – aggressively confronting anyone who had the gall to question whether demanding that the most vulnerable in society again make the greatest sacrifices was really morally or economically sustainable.

A storm is coming. The British people have had enough. They are not going to tolerate another parade of ministers in tight grey suits, sporting red – rather than blue – ties, telling them those in most need have to do with less.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14514899/DAN-HODGES-Labour-minister-Newsnight-Keir-Starmer.html

As I keep pointing out, Blairism DOES NOT WORK in the 2020s. We tried corporatism in 1945-1979: it had its day and then it died. We tried neoliberalism in 1980-2019: it had its day and then it died. This warmed-over rotting-fish neoliberalism is not working and requires Labour to act out of character: if it isn't there to defend the old and the sick, what the hell is it there for? When is the "taxing the rich" bit due to kick in? They aren't going to do that because Blairism could afford not to do so, but these days you have to.

Honestly Morgan McSweeney, if you read PB, please do the bloody maths, yes?

You can’t tax the rich any more because the rich are ever more mobile, as Covid and WFH and the interweb have shown

Britain is already suffering a profound exodus of rich people, more than any other nation on earth. At the same time sunnier places without terror attacks, migration nightmares and machete-wielding Rolex robbers are attracting these rich people (often the young) with digital nomad visas and very low taxes

The Treasury is well aware of this, hence Labour backtracking on non doms and desperately trying to change its rhetoric on wealth

If you want our tax base to entirely disappear, go ahead an impose a wealth tax, and see how much rain mobile wealthy people are willing to tolerate in return for, uhm, ah, the brilliance of the NHS?

You have to tax something.

You can't run a nation state on debt indefinitely and I don't care what Modern Monetary Theory says. If you can't tax people, tax land. If you can't tax land, tax houses. If you can't tax houses, tax luxury goods. Stop thinking you can enjoy an entire economy and culture and hundreds of nuclear warheads to avenge your death based on nothing but more and more interest payments and more and more debt. It isn't working.

You can cut spending first. Let's start with £18billion for Chagos, £11billion for climate and god knows how much for foreign aid first. Oh and slash welfare in half.

williamglenn said:

Andy_JS said:

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1902440135746318561

This week I ran a focus group in Grimsby for @channel4news.

The mood amongst voters was nothing short of apocalyptic. On migration, welfare, and the future of Britain.

No party leader was seen as truly capable of leading Britain out of a mess they felt was caused above all by mass immigration.

Rich in anger and conspiracy theories, it was also the most American of the English focus groups I’ve ever conducted.

This could have been written any time in the last 10 years.

No, I think there's been a marked shift in the last 12 months. There's now much more elite acceptance that Britain is in decline and that mass migration is not working and at the same time large parts of the public have become more radical.

Paradoxically the election of Labour broke the liberal consensus that had prevailed since Blair.

williamglenn said:

Andy_JS said:

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1902440135746318561

This week I ran a focus group in Grimsby for @channel4news.

The mood amongst voters was nothing short of apocalyptic. On migration, welfare, and the future of Britain.

No party leader was seen as truly capable of leading Britain out of a mess they felt was caused above all by mass immigration.

Rich in anger and conspiracy theories, it was also the most American of the English focus groups I’ve ever conducted.

This could have been written any time in the last 10 years.

No, I think there's been a marked shift in the last 12 months. There's now much more elite acceptance that Britain is in decline and that mass migration is not working and at the same time large parts of the public have become more radical.

Paradoxically the election of Labour broke the liberal consensus that had prevailed since Blair.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Andy_JS said:

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1902440135746318561

This week I ran a focus group in Grimsby for @channel4news.

The mood amongst voters was nothing short of apocalyptic. On migration, welfare, and the future of Britain.

No party leader was seen as truly capable of leading Britain out of a mess they felt was caused above all by mass immigration.

Rich in anger and conspiracy theories, it was also the most American of the English focus groups I’ve ever conducted.

This could have been written any time in the last 10 years.

I think the question is do these people continue to be disappointed by the main parties but still vote for them or do we see a rise in much much more radical left and right parties* that are common place in Europe. We did for a brief moment see the rise in the BNP in places like Stoke for exactly this reason, it was local people who joined the BNP and were pushing Corbynista economic policies.

*I don't really see Reform as radical, its a one man party of a bloke who could easily been in the Tories prior to Cameron and is quite to disown anything too radical and its really trying the same trick as Boris promising all the sweeties without any of the pain.

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

.

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

To raise the tone above the likes of @kinabalu and @kjh - this is why my tour guide was so amazing

He met me at the cathedral and we spent a pleasant couple of hours touring pleasant, safe, unexciting Montevideo

Then there was a thunderstorm and we were forced inside a very atmospheric old cafe (Caffe Braziliano). 19th century. Great coffee. At this point he opened up about his prior life in the Uruguayan army - mainly in their UN peacekeeping force (I had no idea Uruguay did so much peacekeeping)

By the time we got to the famous old market in the port for a famous Uruguayan barbecue lunch we’d bonded so much he admitted that not only had he spent years in the Congo and Georgia (where he was held hostage at gunpoint for a week) in his UN mission, he was also in Rwanda (again for the UN) where he witnessed, personally, the entire genocide from before it began to the aftermath - seeing the killings, driving through corpses, everything. He showed me the evidence and discussed how it changed him

Maybe the most compelling single hour of conversation I’ve ever had. To arrive BEFORE that genocide and leave AFTER. What does that do to you? He tried to explain and he was very articulate

To accompany this extraordinary conversation we had excellent steaks, chorizo, provolone, a good bottle of Tannat red wine and this secret Uruguayan wine they call “half and half”



This is one reason I love my job

Interesting story (though why the unnecessary dig at a couple of PBers ?).

I didn't know there were Uruguayan members of the UN forces in Rwanda during the genocide.
They are not mentioned here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roméo_Dallaire
I'd be interested to hear more of his story.

60 seconds with Google.....

https://peacekeeping.un.org/sites/default/files/past/unamirF.htm

"CONTRIBUTORS OF MILITARY AND CIVILIAN POLICE PERSONNEL
Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chad, Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Germany, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, India, Jordan, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Zambia and Zimbabwe"

Yes, I just did that myself. My bad.

Probably only a handful of troops from the countries other than Belgium (the majority, but withdrawn early on) Pakistan, Canada, Ghana, Tunisia, and Bangladesh, though ?

He’s not lying and neither am I. Tut

https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/testimonios/article/view/47125

“A 30 años del genocidio de Ruanda de 1994: la experiencia de los cascos azules uruguayos”

Nigelb said:

Well that's not good.

The Federal Reserve cuts 2025 growth outlook, raises inflation forecast, raises unemployment projection to 4.4%
https://x.com/unusual_whales/status/1902422065933648200

Foxy said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Andy_JS said:

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1902440135746318561

This week I ran a focus group in Grimsby for @channel4news.

The mood amongst voters was nothing short of apocalyptic. On migration, welfare, and the future of Britain.

No party leader was seen as truly capable of leading Britain out of a mess they felt was caused above all by mass immigration.

Rich in anger and conspiracy theories, it was also the most American of the English focus groups I’ve ever conducted.

This could have been written any time in the last 10 years.

I think the question is do these people continue to be disappointed by the main parties but still vote for them or do we see a rise in much much more radical left and right parties* that are common place in Europe. We did for a brief moment see the rise in the BNP in places like Stoke for exactly this reason, it was local people who joined the BNP and were pushing Corbynista economic policies.

*I don't really see Reform as radical, its a one man party of a bloke who could easily been in the Tories prior to Cameron and is quite to disown anything too radical and its really trying the same trick as Boris promising all the sweeties without any of the pain.

There is also a great complacency about voting for real dipshits offering the moon on a stick.

Think things couldn't get worse? They certainly can, and not just a bit worse. There are plenty of failed states in history, where the citizens thought the party could run forever.

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

.

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

To raise the tone above the likes of @kinabalu and @kjh - this is why my tour guide was so amazing

He met me at the cathedral and we spent a pleasant couple of hours touring pleasant, safe, unexciting Montevideo

Then there was a thunderstorm and we were forced inside a very atmospheric old cafe (Caffe Braziliano). 19th century. Great coffee. At this point he opened up about his prior life in the Uruguayan army - mainly in their UN peacekeeping force (I had no idea Uruguay did so much peacekeeping)

By the time we got to the famous old market in the port for a famous Uruguayan barbecue lunch we’d bonded so much he admitted that not only had he spent years in the Congo and Georgia (where he was held hostage at gunpoint for a week) in his UN mission, he was also in Rwanda (again for the UN) where he witnessed, personally, the entire genocide from before it began to the aftermath - seeing the killings, driving through corpses, everything. He showed me the evidence and discussed how it changed him

Maybe the most compelling single hour of conversation I’ve ever had. To arrive BEFORE that genocide and leave AFTER. What does that do to you? He tried to explain and he was very articulate

To accompany this extraordinary conversation we had excellent steaks, chorizo, provolone, a good bottle of Tannat red wine and this secret Uruguayan wine they call “half and half”



This is one reason I love my job

Interesting story (though why the unnecessary dig at a couple of PBers ?).

I didn't know there were Uruguayan members of the UN forces in Rwanda during the genocide.
They are not mentioned here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roméo_Dallaire
I'd be interested to hear more of his story.

60 seconds with Google.....

https://peacekeeping.un.org/sites/default/files/past/unamirF.htm

"CONTRIBUTORS OF MILITARY AND CIVILIAN POLICE PERSONNEL
Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chad, Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Germany, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, India, Jordan, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Zambia and Zimbabwe"

Yes, I just did that myself. My bad.

Probably only a handful of troops from the countries other than Belgium (the majority, but withdrawn early on) Pakistan, Canada, Ghana, Tunisia, and Bangladesh, though ?

He’s not lying and neither am I. Tut

https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/testimonios/article/view/47125

“A 30 años del genocidio de Ruanda de 1994: la experiencia de los cascos azules uruguayos”

I wasn't suggesting he was (and I've already corrected/acknowledged my mistake upthread).

I am genuinely interested in hearing more.

Leon said:

rottenborough said:

williamglenn said:

Andy_JS said:

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1902440135746318561

This week I ran a focus group in Grimsby for @channel4news.

The mood amongst voters was nothing short of apocalyptic. On migration, welfare, and the future of Britain.

No party leader was seen as truly capable of leading Britain out of a mess they felt was caused above all by mass immigration.

Rich in anger and conspiracy theories, it was also the most American of the English focus groups I’ve ever conducted.

This could have been written any time in the last 10 years.

No, I think there's been a marked shift in the last 12 months. There's now much more elite acceptance that Britain is in decline and that mass migration is not working and at the same time large parts of the public have become more radical.

Paradoxically the election of Labour broke the liberal consensus that had prevailed since Blair.

Social media is destroying our democracy.

That focus group seems to be stuff full of conspiracy theories and is "the most america" the guy has seen.

Can't think where these voters are getting all their information from.

Overwhelming mass immigration is not a “racist conspiracy theory”. Nor; as we now know, is “two tier justice”

British people can see the boriswave on their streets. They can see the 10 million we have let in since 1997. They can see that - despite all claims otherwise - this immigration is not “essential for growth and prosperity”. GDP per capita has basically flatlined for fifteen years. They can also see that both main parties are responsible for this and both of them have no clue what to do about it

Brace. It’s gonna kick off

williamglenn said:

Foxy said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

.

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

To raise the tone above the likes of @kinabalu and @kjh - this is why my tour guide was so amazing

He met me at the cathedral and we spent a pleasant couple of hours touring pleasant, safe, unexciting Montevideo

Then there was a thunderstorm and we were forced inside a very atmospheric old cafe (Caffe Braziliano). 19th century. Great coffee. At this point he opened up about his prior life in the Uruguayan army - mainly in their UN peacekeeping force (I had no idea Uruguay did so much peacekeeping)

By the time we got to the famous old market in the port for a famous Uruguayan barbecue lunch we’d bonded so much he admitted that not only had he spent years in the Congo and Georgia (where he was held hostage at gunpoint for a week) in his UN mission, he was also in Rwanda (again for the UN) where he witnessed, personally, the entire genocide from before it began to the aftermath - seeing the killings, driving through corpses, everything. He showed me the evidence and discussed how it changed him

Maybe the most compelling single hour of conversation I’ve ever had. To arrive BEFORE that genocide and leave AFTER. What does that do to you? He tried to explain and he was very articulate

To accompany this extraordinary conversation we had excellent steaks, chorizo, provolone, a good bottle of Tannat red wine and this secret Uruguayan wine they call “half and half”



This is one reason I love my job

Interesting story (though why the unnecessary dig at a couple of PBers ?).

I didn't know there were Uruguayan members of the UN forces in Rwanda during the genocide.
They are not mentioned here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roméo_Dallaire
I'd be interested to hear more of his story.

60 seconds with Google.....

https://peacekeeping.un.org/sites/default/files/past/unamirF.htm

"CONTRIBUTORS OF MILITARY AND CIVILIAN POLICE PERSONNEL
Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chad, Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Germany, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, India, Jordan, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Zambia and Zimbabwe"

Yes, I just did that myself. My bad.

Probably only a handful of troops from the countries other than Belgium (the majority, but withdrawn early on) Pakistan, Canada, Ghana, Tunisia, and Bangladesh, though ?

He’s not lying and neither am I. Tut

https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/testimonios/article/view/47125

“A 30 años del genocidio de Ruanda de 1994: la experiencia de los cascos azules uruguayos”

That's where it leads when you dehumanise and "other" human beings in pursuit of ideology.

The world has forgotten that lesson, so is determined to repeat the crimes.

Boomer platitudes. The ideology that has brought us to this point is the denial of the reality of otherness.