Personally I think Kemi is doing a good job but I don't know how long she can last as leader with figures like this.
Regular crossover with the LDs is only a few weeks away.
There's another hatchet job on her in The Times this morning. Some bollocks about falling out with her official driver and then hiring her own car and driver at vast expense.
Watching a politician bleed out in real time is rare sport. You don't even have to feel sorry for her because she's tory scum.
A friend of mine who is DECIDEDLY CLOSE to all the Tory bigwigs and knows all of them, warned me beforehand that the Kemster was like this. "She falls out with everyone, she's not as bright as she believes, she's a bit airheaded". He predicted she would be a disaster, but (FWIW - not much) I felt she was worth the risk. Probably because I quite fancy her
Turns out he was bang on. The Tories chose the wrong leader, it should have been Brandon Jenrick. It is maybe too late for them, now
It would not matter who they chose. For 33 years, the Tories have formed a circular firing squad, and backstabbing colleagues is now endemic, and public patience with them has run out.
Yes, that might well be true. That also means bringing back Boris will do nothing, as well
The end of the Tories is nigh, perhaps
Will you leave out all this "death of the Tories" rubbish.
After your post I am more convinced than ever of a 2029 Johnson/ Tory landslide.
On Farage, I haven't seen it but I can't say I'm especially impressed by '5% less quangos' - sorry what?
Nigel is definitely going for the 'credible party of government' thing. It's not something he's really needed to do before so it'll be interesting to see if he pulls it off. (Some would argue that he shouldn't bother with such legacy politics at all: just be Nigel!)
Be interesting to see how the Reform run councils perform. I cannot see any being an improvement due to the issues in local govt. Statutory,demand versus govt funding
Personally I think Kemi is doing a good job but I don't know how long she can last as leader with figures like this.
Regular crossover with the LDs is only a few weeks away.
There's another hatchet job on her in The Times this morning. Some bollocks about falling out with her official driver and then hiring her own car and driver at vast expense.
Watching a politician bleed out in real time is rare sport. You don't even have to feel sorry for her because she's tory scum.
A friend of mine who is DECIDEDLY CLOSE to all the Tory bigwigs and knows all of them, warned me beforehand that the Kemster was like this. "She falls out with everyone, she's not as bright as she believes, she's a bit airheaded". He predicted she would be a disaster, but (FWIW - not much) I felt she was worth the risk. Probably because I quite fancy her
Turns out he was bang on. The Tories chose the wrong leader, it should have been Brandon Jenrick. It is maybe too late for them, now
It would not matter who they chose. For 33 years, the Tories have formed a circular firing squad, and backstabbing colleagues is now endemic, and public patience with them has run out.
Yes, that might well be true. That also means bringing back Boris will do nothing, as well
The end of the Tories is nigh, perhaps
Will you leave out all this "death of the Tories" rubbish.
After your post I am more convinced than ever of a 2029 Johnson/ Tory landslide.
Personally I think Kemi is doing a good job but I don't know how long she can last as leader with figures like this.
Regular crossover with the LDs is only a few weeks away.
There's another hatchet job on her in The Times this morning. Some bollocks about falling out with her official driver and then hiring her own car and driver at vast expense.
Watching a politician bleed out in real time is rare sport. You don't even have to feel sorry for her because she's tory scum.
She needs to sack every one of the poisonous snotrags at CCHQ whether she makes it or not. Might as well have some sort of legacy. If they briefed the press against Starmer at the same rate as they brief against Kemi the Tories would be 5 points ahead.
It's always the Times too.
I think it's Gove playing a George Smiley style deep game.
So the Tories will be the 5th biggest party, in danger of a cunning policy move from Mebyon Kernow, which would put them into 6th
Looks like the 10 seats the Tories would win are:
Harrow E Ruislip Croydon S East Grinstead Epping Forest Hertsmere Beaconsfield Windsor Earley & Woodley (a gain from Labour oddly enough) Stone (Gavin Williamson's seat, so he'd probably be leader)
East Grinstead should be a top LD target next time. It looks safe even though the Tory vote wasn’t any better than other seats around, because Labour and LibDem split the opposition vote. But the LDs secured the all important second place, and with LDs now so strong in the south and with an unpopular government, it is easy to see the centre-left vote swinging significantly behind them next time around.
Indeed, if the political environment looks anything like last time, it would make a great constituency bet, as on the figures it looks far more of a long shot than it is.
Grinstead also lacked a Reform candidate which will eat the Tory share away too
Indeed of those 10 'holds', Stone, Grinstead and Epping all lacked a Reform candidate in 2024
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
It's obvious why they had to do it. And it's been remarkable the change in language online as a result - "road rage", "he panicked", "scared for his life", "a car hit pedestrians" (rather than "a driver").
You wouldn't phrase it like that for someone slashing people in a pub with a knife, and you certainly wouldn't be calling it road rage if it was a recent small boat Muslim immigrant. Perversely, prejudice against Liverpool fans was the response once the ethnicity was known.
But the statement has rather implied that rioting would be justified if it wasn't a white British man. That's why I'm uneasy with it.
The important thing the police wanted to get out was stop the racists from turning a disaster into a race riot (ala Southport). Because that was what various people were trying to do
It’s anti Islam rather than racists I’d say. Had the perpetrator been a black British Christian with his roots in the Caribbean there wouldn’t be riots, if it were a black Muslim refugee from east Africa there probably would
There are several million Islamic/Islamic heritage people permanently resident in the UK. This general fact isn't going to change even if net zero migration happened today.
An essential shift which has to happen to avoid disaster is a cultural shift whereby Islam is added to Judaism and Christianity and all three together considered under a common 'Abrahamic monotheistic faith' sort of umbrella, just as at the moment we speak often of the 'Judaeo/Christian' inheritance without finding it a disturbing concept.
There is of course no difficulty in rubbishing all of these traditions (I belong to the Christian one, regularly rubbished by one and all) so it will be uphill, but without it we are in trouble.
But that requires Islam to undergo an Enlightenment. So as a belief system it is able to accept and tolerate criticism, satire, cruel mockery
Judaism and Christianity have both undergone this process, there is absolutely no sign of this happening within Islam, indeed it is going in the opposite direction, becoming even more dogmatic, prickly, conservative, aggressive
So how do you solve that? Because unless you solve it, then it seems to me that conservative Islam is incompatible with liberal western freedoms as we know them, and we have imported one hell of a problem
Yes, that's very obviously a good point. it's possible that it is partially insoluble, but I don't feel certain. If I were responsible for the development of policies which helped in this direction, I would look at three things: the way in which even very conservative versions of Judaism and Christianity are a peaceful part of the mix in Britain; secondly look at the examples of thoughful and open Islam which exist - there are some in the cities and the universities - and thirdly have a careful look at the USA way of handling it which appears to have been quite successful.
There is a growing Islamic middle class in the UK (visit any hospital), and the middle class are usually reasonably good at coexistence.
Finally, Islamic history has remarkable examples of high culture, relative tolerance and stellar scholarship far too little known here.
So the Tories will be the 5th biggest party, in danger of a cunning policy move from Mebyon Kernow, which would put them into 6th
Looks like the 10 seats the Tories would win are:
Harrow E Ruislip Croydon S East Grinstead Epping Forest Hertsmere Beaconsfield Windsor Earley & Woodley (a gain from Labour oddly enough) Stone (Gavin Williamson's seat, so he'd probably be leader)
East Grinstead should be a top LD target next time. It looks safe even though the Tory vote wasn’t any better than other seats around, because Labour and LibDem split the opposition vote. But the LDs secured the all important second place, and with LDs now so strong in the south and with an unpopular government, it is easy to see the centre-left vote swinging significantly behind them next time around.
Indeed, if the political environment looks anything like last time, it would make a great constituency bet, as on the figures it looks far more of a long shot than it is.
Grinstead also lacked a Reform candidate which will eat the Tory share away too
Indeed of those 10 'holds', Stone, Grinstead and Epping all lacked a Reform candidate in 2024
Yes the Tory vote was artificially inflated in those.
I see that congratulations are due for Reform for successfully locating the ever-elusive magic money tree. In its absence their fiscal plans would be a load of old bollocks, so it's a good job they've found it.
The idea that any more can be taken from local government is laughable.
Statutory requirements could be amended for instance not having to fund little Jimmy's daily taxi to school.
Quite a good point on X: the car reg from the Liverpool horror must be visible in one of the many videos
How hard is it to search the reg and find the owner? That's probably the perp
As more videos emerge it does look like this really is some hideous panic by the driver that turned into utter carnage. Tragic
Panic by the driver in response to panic by the crowd who thought they were stopping a terrorist. Odd thing is the police did not stop him earlier but I suppose that's being looked into as we speak.
There was a similar incident during the mostly peaceful BLM riots in the US. A truck took a wrong turn ended up in the mob and panicked. I believe the charges were dropped in the end.
Personally I think Kemi is doing a good job but I don't know how long she can last as leader with figures like this.
Regular crossover with the LDs is only a few weeks away.
There's another hatchet job on her in The Times this morning. Some bollocks about falling out with her official driver and then hiring her own car and driver at vast expense.
Watching a politician bleed out in real time is rare sport. You don't even have to feel sorry for her because she's tory scum.
She needs to sack every one of the poisonous snotrags at CCHQ whether she makes it or not. Might as well have some sort of legacy. If they briefed the press against Starmer at the same rate as they brief against Kemi the Tories would be 5 points ahead.
It's always the Times too.
I think it's Gove playing a George Smiley style deep game.
More Norman Smiley.
More like Carole Smilie.
I’m sure a few of us who went to Radio One (when it was good and not full of rap shit) remember Smiley Miley.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
They're such lying fucks. People don't believe them, and they're right to disbelieve
As you say they will do it when it suits - white British male, gammony face, they will release the info probably before the crime is actually committed. Others, not so much
I’ve already heard plenty of “futureproofing” from politicians etc today where they have been saying that of course they won’t always be able to announce the ethnicity of a suspect in future for various “operational reasons”.
So if it’s a white man there will not be any operational reasons to keep that quiet - which sort of causes the situation where whenever they don’t announce the race of a suspect then everyone will assume they are not white males and so the worst of society will use that to stir things up.
The core problem is that every time there's a crime we have a bunch of racists desperate for the perp to be not white so they can kick off.
This makes it hard for any general 'policy' to be implemented.
There are also plenty who hope the “perp” is a white far right person so they can kick off or feel virtuous.
Or those who support other football teams hoping it was by fans of a team they hate so they can use it as a stick whilst confirming their prejudices.
But the risk of violence is asymmetric, this is the key thing. It's a practical matter being grappled with - how to minimise the chance of racist riots - not some point of theory or ideology.
OK, so if there is assymetric risk we can treat different groups differently - good to know, could have sworn that was anathama racist profiling last I checked.
So the Tories will be the 5th biggest party, in danger of a cunning policy move from Mebyon Kernow, which would put them into 6th
Looks like the 10 seats the Tories would win are:
Harrow E Ruislip Croydon S East Grinstead Epping Forest Hertsmere Beaconsfield Windsor Earley & Woodley (a gain from Labour oddly enough) Stone (Gavin Williamson's seat, so he'd probably be leader)
East Grinstead should be a top LD target next time. It looks safe even though the Tory vote wasn’t any better than other seats around, because Labour and LibDem split the opposition vote. But the LDs secured the all important second place, and with LDs now so strong in the south and with an unpopular government, it is easy to see the centre-left vote swinging significantly behind them next time around.
Indeed, if the political environment looks anything like last time, it would make a great constituency bet, as on the figures it looks far more of a long shot than it is.
Grinstead also lacked a Reform candidate which will eat the Tory share away too
Indeed of those 10 'holds', Stone, Grinstead and Epping all lacked a Reform candidate in 2024
Indeed. My old MP (Penrith and Border) got booted out in favour of a rather dim Tory on boundary changes, had the luck to get in at Epping, had the further luck of having no Reform against him, so is still in the Commons while his old seat went Labour. Still, I think, the only vet in the House of Commons. Decent bloke.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
It's obvious why they had to do it. And it's been remarkable the change in language online as a result - "road rage", "he panicked", "scared for his life", "a car hit pedestrians" (rather than "a driver").
You wouldn't phrase it like that for someone slashing people in a pub with a knife, and you certainly wouldn't be calling it road rage if it was a recent small boat Muslim immigrant. Perversely, prejudice against Liverpool fans was the response once the ethnicity was known.
But the statement has rather implied that rioting would be justified if it wasn't a white British man. That's why I'm uneasy with it.
The important thing the police wanted to get out was stop the racists from turning a disaster into a race riot (ala Southport). Because that was what various people were trying to do
It’s anti Islam rather than racists I’d say. Had the perpetrator been a black British Christian with his roots in the Caribbean there wouldn’t be riots, if it were a black Muslim refugee from east Africa there probably would
There are several million Islamic/Islamic heritage people permanently resident in the UK. This general fact isn't going to change even if net zero migration happened today.
An essential shift which has to happen to avoid disaster is a cultural shift whereby Islam is added to Judaism and Christianity and all three together considered under a common 'Abrahamic monotheistic faith' sort of umbrella, just as at the moment we speak often of the 'Judaeo/Christian' inheritance without finding it a disturbing concept.
There is of course no difficulty in rubbishing all of these traditions (I belong to the Christian one, regularly rubbished by one and all) so it will be uphill, but without it we are in trouble.
But that requires Islam to undergo an Enlightenment. So as a belief system it is able to accept and tolerate criticism, satire, cruel mockery
Judaism and Christianity have both undergone this process, there is absolutely no sign of this happening within Islam, indeed it is going in the opposite direction, becoming even more dogmatic, prickly, conservative, aggressive
So how do you solve that? Because unless you solve it, then it seems to me that conservative Islam is incompatible with liberal western freedoms as we know them, and we have imported one hell of a problem
Yes, that's very obviously a good point. it's possible that it is partially insoluble, but I don't feel certain. If I were responsible for the development of policies which helped in this direction, I would look at three things: the way in which even very conservative versions of Judaism and Christianity are a peaceful part of the mix in Britain; secondly look at the examples of thoughful and open Islam which exist - there are some in the cities and the universities - and thirdly have a careful look at the USA way of handling it which appears to have been quite successful.
There is a growing Islamic middle class in the UK (visit any hospital), and the middle class are usually reasonably good at coexistence.
Finally, Islamic history has remarkable examples of high culture, relative tolerance and stellar scholarship far too little known here.
When I was a councillor in east London I spent a reasonable amount of time with our majority Asian teenagers over the years. They seemed very aware of living in two cultural worlds, their schooling in an environment driven by western liberal values and their home life significantly more conservative in attitudes, depending on whether their parents were first or second generation arrivals. And as a generation they seemed aware that during their adult lives they would have to find a way of reconciling, or at least find some balance between, the two.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
It's obvious why they had to do it. And it's been remarkable the change in language online as a result - "road rage", "he panicked", "scared for his life", "a car hit pedestrians" (rather than "a driver").
You wouldn't phrase it like that for someone slashing people in a pub with a knife, and you certainly wouldn't be calling it road rage if it was a recent small boat Muslim immigrant. Perversely, prejudice against Liverpool fans was the response once the ethnicity was known.
But the statement has rather implied that rioting would be justified if it wasn't a white British man. That's why I'm uneasy with it.
The important thing the police wanted to get out was stop the racists from turning a disaster into a race riot (ala Southport). Because that was what various people were trying to do
It’s anti Islam rather than racists I’d say. Had the perpetrator been a black British Christian with his roots in the Caribbean there wouldn’t be riots, if it were a black Muslim refugee from east Africa there probably would
There are several million Islamic/Islamic heritage people permanently resident in the UK. This general fact isn't going to change even if net zero migration happened today.
An essential shift which has to happen to avoid disaster is a cultural shift whereby Islam is added to Judaism and Christianity and all three together considered under a common 'Abrahamic monotheistic faith' sort of umbrella, just as at the moment we speak often of the 'Judaeo/Christian' inheritance without finding it a disturbing concept.
There is of course no difficulty in rubbishing all of these traditions (I belong to the Christian one, regularly rubbished by one and all) so it will be uphill, but without it we are in trouble.
But that requires Islam to undergo an Enlightenment. So as a belief system it is able to accept and tolerate criticism, satire, cruel mockery
Judaism and Christianity have both undergone this process, there is absolutely no sign of this happening within Islam, indeed it is going in the opposite direction, becoming even more dogmatic, prickly, conservative, aggressive
So how do you solve that? Because unless you solve it, then it seems to me that conservative Islam is incompatible with liberal western freedoms as we know them, and we have imported one hell of a problem
Yes, that's very obviously a good point. it's possible that it is partially insoluble, but I don't feel certain. If I were responsible for the development of policies which helped in this direction, I would look at three things: the way in which even very conservative versions of Judaism and Christianity are a peaceful part of the mix in Britain; secondly look at the examples of thoughful and open Islam which exist - there are some in the cities and the universities - and thirdly have a careful look at the USA way of handling it which appears to have been quite successful.
There is a growing Islamic middle class in the UK (visit any hospital), and the middle class are usually reasonably good at coexistence.
Finally, Islamic history has remarkable examples of high culture, relative tolerance and stellar scholarship far too little known here.
Muslim America is much better integrated because the Muslims tend to come from more liberal Islamic countries - eg Malaysia, Indonesia, India, UAE, dissident Iran - and to date they have tended to be quite wealthy from the off
America has almost no tradition of poor conservative Islamic migrants coming direct from say, Pakistan, Syria, Afghanistan, Algeria, Somalia, Kurdistan (tho this is beginning to change)
So it may just be that America got "lucky" in the provenance of its relatively small Muslim population
I think we will look back at 2025 as peak Farage, I am just stuck by how Starmer and crew appear to be in Government but not in power despite a massive majority, If they roll back on the political capital they lost on Winter Fuel Payments the remaining credibility will be shot.
Starmer was seen as an ineffective leader of opposition but had the sense to stay silent when the conservatives under Johnson/ Truss imploded - perhaps Badenoch is following the strategy.
With 4 small children's mouths to feed, can Boris even afford to become an MP again? Two child benefit cap and all.
I wonder what his rate per evening is on the after dinner circuit? I don't think his children will be on free school meals quite yet. (Though there is no better way of spending money on food and social cohesion than free school meals for infants and juniors IMHO).
How many of the 120 Tory MPs might be thinking of an early defection I wonder. And what proportion of those would Nige accept?
Equally 403 is a huge number of parliamentary colleagues for Starmer to keep satisfied. What proportion of those have little prospect of a paid position and look dead certs to lose their seats to Reform on current polling.
When is the sweet spot to jump? 2025 feels a little early, 2029 too late. The ambitious types in 2026 and the rats from the ships in ‘27 or ‘28 depending on what everyone else does?
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
It's obvious why they had to do it. And it's been remarkable the change in language online as a result - "road rage", "he panicked", "scared for his life", "a car hit pedestrians" (rather than "a driver").
You wouldn't phrase it like that for someone slashing people in a pub with a knife, and you certainly wouldn't be calling it road rage if it was a recent small boat Muslim immigrant. Perversely, prejudice against Liverpool fans was the response once the ethnicity was known.
But the statement has rather implied that rioting would be justified if it wasn't a white British man. That's why I'm uneasy with it.
The important thing the police wanted to get out was stop the racists from turning a disaster into a race riot (ala Southport). Because that was what various people were trying to do
It’s anti Islam rather than racists I’d say. Had the perpetrator been a black British Christian with his roots in the Caribbean there wouldn’t be riots, if it were a black Muslim refugee from east Africa there probably would
There are several million Islamic/Islamic heritage people permanently resident in the UK. This general fact isn't going to change even if net zero migration happened today.
An essential shift which has to happen to avoid disaster is a cultural shift whereby Islam is added to Judaism and Christianity and all three together considered under a common 'Abrahamic monotheistic faith' sort of umbrella, just as at the moment we speak often of the 'Judaeo/Christian' inheritance without finding it a disturbing concept.
There is of course no difficulty in rubbishing all of these traditions (I belong to the Christian one, regularly rubbished by one and all) so it will be uphill, but without it we are in trouble.
But that requires Islam to undergo an Enlightenment. So as a belief system it is able to accept and tolerate criticism, satire, cruel mockery
Judaism and Christianity have both undergone this process, there is absolutely no sign of this happening within Islam, indeed it is going in the opposite direction, becoming even more dogmatic, prickly, conservative, aggressive
So how do you solve that? Because unless you solve it, then it seems to me that conservative Islam is incompatible with liberal western freedoms as we know them, and we have imported one hell of a problem
Yes, that's very obviously a good point. it's possible that it is partially insoluble, but I don't feel certain. If I were responsible for the development of policies which helped in this direction, I would look at three things: the way in which even very conservative versions of Judaism and Christianity are a peaceful part of the mix in Britain; secondly look at the examples of thoughful and open Islam which exist - there are some in the cities and the universities - and thirdly have a careful look at the USA way of handling it which appears to have been quite successful.
There is a growing Islamic middle class in the UK (visit any hospital), and the middle class are usually reasonably good at coexistence.
Finally, Islamic history has remarkable examples of high culture, relative tolerance and stellar scholarship far too little known here.
Your final point is because the immigration we have allowed has been en masse rather than selective. If we had offered jobs to the best Islamic engineers, doctors, lawyers and so on, I’m sure the societal & economic frictions would be few. As it is, we’ve taken the equivalent of our WWC from the poor parts of Asian & African cities, thrown them in with the poorest English people and said get on with it. A recipe for disaster
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
It's obvious why they had to do it. And it's been remarkable the change in language online as a result - "road rage", "he panicked", "scared for his life", "a car hit pedestrians" (rather than "a driver").
You wouldn't phrase it like that for someone slashing people in a pub with a knife, and you certainly wouldn't be calling it road rage if it was a recent small boat Muslim immigrant. Perversely, prejudice against Liverpool fans was the response once the ethnicity was known.
But the statement has rather implied that rioting would be justified if it wasn't a white British man. That's why I'm uneasy with it.
The important thing the police wanted to get out was stop the racists from turning a disaster into a race riot (ala Southport). Because that was what various people were trying to do
It’s anti Islam rather than racists I’d say. Had the perpetrator been a black British Christian with his roots in the Caribbean there wouldn’t be riots, if it were a black Muslim refugee from east Africa there probably would
There are several million Islamic/Islamic heritage people permanently resident in the UK. This general fact isn't going to change even if net zero migration happened today.
An essential shift which has to happen to avoid disaster is a cultural shift whereby Islam is added to Judaism and Christianity and all three together considered under a common 'Abrahamic monotheistic faith' sort of umbrella, just as at the moment we speak often of the 'Judaeo/Christian' inheritance without finding it a disturbing concept.
There is of course no difficulty in rubbishing all of these traditions (I belong to the Christian one, regularly rubbished by one and all) so it will be uphill, but without it we are in trouble.
But that requires Islam to undergo an Enlightenment. So as a belief system it is able to accept and tolerate criticism, satire, cruel mockery
Judaism and Christianity have both undergone this process, there is absolutely no sign of this happening within Islam, indeed it is going in the opposite direction, becoming even more dogmatic, prickly, conservative, aggressive
So how do you solve that? Because unless you solve it, then it seems to me that conservative Islam is incompatible with liberal western freedoms as we know them, and we have imported one hell of a problem
Yes, that's very obviously a good point. it's possible that it is partially insoluble, but I don't feel certain. If I were responsible for the development of policies which helped in this direction, I would look at three things: the way in which even very conservative versions of Judaism and Christianity are a peaceful part of the mix in Britain; secondly look at the examples of thoughful and open Islam which exist - there are some in the cities and the universities - and thirdly have a careful look at the USA way of handling it which appears to have been quite successful.
There is a growing Islamic middle class in the UK (visit any hospital), and the middle class are usually reasonably good at coexistence.
Finally, Islamic history has remarkable examples of high culture, relative tolerance and stellar scholarship far too little known here.
Muslim America is much better integrated because the Muslims tend to come from more liberal Islamic countries - eg Malaysia, Indonesia, India, UAE, dissident Iran - and to date they have tended to be quite wealthy from the off
America has almost no tradition of poor conservative Islamic migrants coming direct from say, Pakistan, Syria, Afghanistan, Algeria, Somalia, Kurdistan (tho this is beginning to change)
So it may just be that America got "lucky" in the provenance of its relatively small Muslim population
It's a grim situation for Europe, in contrast
It is exactly the potential for grim outcomes (Northern Ireland x 10,000) which gives the reason for sane and subtle policies now.
How many of the 120 Tory MPs might be thinking of an early defection I wonder. And what proportion of those would Nige accept?
Equally 403 is a huge number of parliamentary colleagues for Starmer to keep satisfied. What proportion of those have little prospect of a paid position and look dead certs to lose their seats to Reform on current polling.
When is the sweet spot to jump? 2025 feels a little early, 2029 too late. The ambitious types in 2026 and the rats from the ships in ‘27 or ‘28 depending on what everyone else does?
Nigel won't accept more than 2 or 3. He can't risk taking 10 and being ousted or having his authority undermined
Edit - they wouldnt be jumping ship because of ideology but as a career move remember
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
It's obvious why they had to do it. And it's been remarkable the change in language online as a result - "road rage", "he panicked", "scared for his life", "a car hit pedestrians" (rather than "a driver").
You wouldn't phrase it like that for someone slashing people in a pub with a knife, and you certainly wouldn't be calling it road rage if it was a recent small boat Muslim immigrant. Perversely, prejudice against Liverpool fans was the response once the ethnicity was known.
But the statement has rather implied that rioting would be justified if it wasn't a white British man. That's why I'm uneasy with it.
The important thing the police wanted to get out was stop the racists from turning a disaster into a race riot (ala Southport). Because that was what various people were trying to do
It’s anti Islam rather than racists I’d say. Had the perpetrator been a black British Christian with his roots in the Caribbean there wouldn’t be riots, if it were a black Muslim refugee from east Africa there probably would
There are several million Islamic/Islamic heritage people permanently resident in the UK. This general fact isn't going to change even if net zero migration happened today.
An essential shift which has to happen to avoid disaster is a cultural shift whereby Islam is added to Judaism and Christianity and all three together considered under a common 'Abrahamic monotheistic faith' sort of umbrella, just as at the moment we speak often of the 'Judaeo/Christian' inheritance without finding it a disturbing concept.
There is of course no difficulty in rubbishing all of these traditions (I belong to the Christian one, regularly rubbished by one and all) so it will be uphill, but without it we are in trouble.
But that requires Islam to undergo an Enlightenment. So as a belief system it is able to accept and tolerate criticism, satire, cruel mockery
Judaism and Christianity have both undergone this process, there is absolutely no sign of this happening within Islam, indeed it is going in the opposite direction, becoming even more dogmatic, prickly, conservative, aggressive
So how do you solve that? Because unless you solve it, then it seems to me that conservative Islam is incompatible with liberal western freedoms as we know them, and we have imported one hell of a problem
Yes, that's very obviously a good point. it's possible that it is partially insoluble, but I don't feel certain. If I were responsible for the development of policies which helped in this direction, I would look at three things: the way in which even very conservative versions of Judaism and Christianity are a peaceful part of the mix in Britain; secondly look at the examples of thoughful and open Islam which exist - there are some in the cities and the universities - and thirdly have a careful look at the USA way of handling it which appears to have been quite successful.
There is a growing Islamic middle class in the UK (visit any hospital), and the middle class are usually reasonably good at coexistence.
Finally, Islamic history has remarkable examples of high culture, relative tolerance and stellar scholarship far too little known here.
Your final point is because the immigration we have allowed has been en masse rather than selective. If we had offered jobs to the best Islamic engineers, doctors, lawyers and so on, I’m sure the societal & economic frictions would be few. As it is, we’ve taken the equivalent of our WWC from the poor parts of Asian & African cities, thrown them in with the poorest English people and said get on with it. A recipe for disaster
Looking back Merkel's "Let Them In" policy of 2015 seems ever more insane. We already knew by then that importing conservative Islam was a recipe for disorder and violence. Yet she did it
How many of the 120 Tory MPs might be thinking of an early defection I wonder. And what proportion of those would Nige accept?
Equally 403 is a huge number of parliamentary colleagues for Starmer to keep satisfied. What proportion of those have little prospect of a paid position and look dead certs to lose their seats to Reform on current polling.
When is the sweet spot to jump? 2025 feels a little early, 2029 too late. The ambitious types in 2026 and the rats from the ships in ‘27 or ‘28 depending on what everyone else does?
Nigel won't accept more than 2 or 3. He can't risk taking 10 and being ousted or having his authority undermined
Edit - they wouldnt be jumping ship because of ideology but as a career move remember
Yes that’s an interesting point. Hadn’t thought of that,
Hmm. Reform UK Councillors in West Northants will refuse their diversity training:
A Reform UK council leader has confirmed that his group will not take part in diversity or climate training as part of their new roles as elected officials.
Mark Arnull, a Reform UK councillor, was appointed as the leader of West Northamptonshire Council on Wednesday.
He told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: "As it stands, I will stand with the policy and the councillors on the Reform group will not be attending the training." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwywg9j9y1xo
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
It's obvious why they had to do it. And it's been remarkable the change in language online as a result - "road rage", "he panicked", "scared for his life", "a car hit pedestrians" (rather than "a driver").
You wouldn't phrase it like that for someone slashing people in a pub with a knife, and you certainly wouldn't be calling it road rage if it was a recent small boat Muslim immigrant. Perversely, prejudice against Liverpool fans was the response once the ethnicity was known.
But the statement has rather implied that rioting would be justified if it wasn't a white British man. That's why I'm uneasy with it.
The important thing the police wanted to get out was stop the racists from turning a disaster into a race riot (ala Southport). Because that was what various people were trying to do
It’s anti Islam rather than racists I’d say. Had the perpetrator been a black British Christian with his roots in the Caribbean there wouldn’t be riots, if it were a black Muslim refugee from east Africa there probably would
There are several million Islamic/Islamic heritage people permanently resident in the UK. This general fact isn't going to change even if net zero migration happened today.
An essential shift which has to happen to avoid disaster is a cultural shift whereby Islam is added to Judaism and Christianity and all three together considered under a common 'Abrahamic monotheistic faith' sort of umbrella, just as at the moment we speak often of the 'Judaeo/Christian' inheritance without finding it a disturbing concept.
There is of course no difficulty in rubbishing all of these traditions (I belong to the Christian one, regularly rubbished by one and all) so it will be uphill, but without it we are in trouble.
But that requires Islam to undergo an Enlightenment. So as a belief system it is able to accept and tolerate criticism, satire, cruel mockery
Judaism and Christianity have both undergone this process, there is absolutely no sign of this happening within Islam, indeed it is going in the opposite direction, becoming even more dogmatic, prickly, conservative, aggressive
So how do you solve that? Because unless you solve it, then it seems to me that conservative Islam is incompatible with liberal western freedoms as we know them, and we have imported one hell of a problem
Yes, that's very obviously a good point. it's possible that it is partially insoluble, but I don't feel certain. If I were responsible for the development of policies which helped in this direction, I would look at three things: the way in which even very conservative versions of Judaism and Christianity are a peaceful part of the mix in Britain; secondly look at the examples of thoughful and open Islam which exist - there are some in the cities and the universities - and thirdly have a careful look at the USA way of handling it which appears to have been quite successful.
There is a growing Islamic middle class in the UK (visit any hospital), and the middle class are usually reasonably good at coexistence.
Finally, Islamic history has remarkable examples of high culture, relative tolerance and stellar scholarship far too little known here.
Your final point is because the immigration we have allowed has been en masse rather than selective. If we had offered jobs to the best Islamic engineers, doctors, lawyers and so on, I’m sure the societal & economic frictions would be few. As it is, we’ve taken the equivalent of our WWC from the poor parts of Asian & African cities, thrown them in with the poorest English people and said get on with it. A recipe for disaster
I am not remotely defending the decades old inward migration policies. They are indefensible.
In the real world there are three possible approaches, none of them exclusive to themselves, given that we are where we are:
1) Mine (as above) 2) Remigration, to which I am absolutely hostile without qualification 3) Potential strife.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
It's obvious why they had to do it. And it's been remarkable the change in language online as a result - "road rage", "he panicked", "scared for his life", "a car hit pedestrians" (rather than "a driver").
You wouldn't phrase it like that for someone slashing people in a pub with a knife, and you certainly wouldn't be calling it road rage if it was a recent small boat Muslim immigrant. Perversely, prejudice against Liverpool fans was the response once the ethnicity was known.
But the statement has rather implied that rioting would be justified if it wasn't a white British man. That's why I'm uneasy with it.
The important thing the police wanted to get out was stop the racists from turning a disaster into a race riot (ala Southport). Because that was what various people were trying to do
It’s anti Islam rather than racists I’d say. Had the perpetrator been a black British Christian with his roots in the Caribbean there wouldn’t be riots, if it were a black Muslim refugee from east Africa there probably would
There are several million Islamic/Islamic heritage people permanently resident in the UK. This general fact isn't going to change even if net zero migration happened today.
An essential shift which has to happen to avoid disaster is a cultural shift whereby Islam is added to Judaism and Christianity and all three together considered under a common 'Abrahamic monotheistic faith' sort of umbrella, just as at the moment we speak often of the 'Judaeo/Christian' inheritance without finding it a disturbing concept.
There is of course no difficulty in rubbishing all of these traditions (I belong to the Christian one, regularly rubbished by one and all) so it will be uphill, but without it we are in trouble.
But that requires Islam to undergo an Enlightenment. So as a belief system it is able to accept and tolerate criticism, satire, cruel mockery
Judaism and Christianity have both undergone this process, there is absolutely no sign of this happening within Islam, indeed it is going in the opposite direction, becoming even more dogmatic, prickly, conservative, aggressive
So how do you solve that? Because unless you solve it, then it seems to me that conservative Islam is incompatible with liberal western freedoms as we know them, and we have imported one hell of a problem
Yes, that's very obviously a good point. it's possible that it is partially insoluble, but I don't feel certain. If I were responsible for the development of policies which helped in this direction, I would look at three things: the way in which even very conservative versions of Judaism and Christianity are a peaceful part of the mix in Britain; secondly look at the examples of thoughful and open Islam which exist - there are some in the cities and the universities - and thirdly have a careful look at the USA way of handling it which appears to have been quite successful.
There is a growing Islamic middle class in the UK (visit any hospital), and the middle class are usually reasonably good at coexistence.
Finally, Islamic history has remarkable examples of high culture, relative tolerance and stellar scholarship far too little known here.
Your final point is because the immigration we have allowed has been en masse rather than selective. If we had offered jobs to the best Islamic engineers, doctors, lawyers and so on, I’m sure the societal & economic frictions would be few. As it is, we’ve taken the equivalent of our WWC from the poor parts of Asian & African cities, thrown them in with the poorest English people and said get on with it. A recipe for disaster
Looking back Merkel's "Let Them In" policy of 2015 seems ever more insane. We already knew by then that importing conservative Islam was a recipe for disorder and violence. Yet she did it
Angela Merkel was the most overrated politician of her generation. She got none of the big calls right.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
It's obvious why they had to do it. And it's been remarkable the change in language online as a result - "road rage", "he panicked", "scared for his life", "a car hit pedestrians" (rather than "a driver").
You wouldn't phrase it like that for someone slashing people in a pub with a knife, and you certainly wouldn't be calling it road rage if it was a recent small boat Muslim immigrant. Perversely, prejudice against Liverpool fans was the response once the ethnicity was known.
But the statement has rather implied that rioting would be justified if it wasn't a white British man. That's why I'm uneasy with it.
The important thing the police wanted to get out was stop the racists from turning a disaster into a race riot (ala Southport). Because that was what various people were trying to do
It’s anti Islam rather than racists I’d say. Had the perpetrator been a black British Christian with his roots in the Caribbean there wouldn’t be riots, if it were a black Muslim refugee from east Africa there probably would
There are several million Islamic/Islamic heritage people permanently resident in the UK. This general fact isn't going to change even if net zero migration happened today.
An essential shift which has to happen to avoid disaster is a cultural shift whereby Islam is added to Judaism and Christianity and all three together considered under a common 'Abrahamic monotheistic faith' sort of umbrella, just as at the moment we speak often of the 'Judaeo/Christian' inheritance without finding it a disturbing concept.
There is of course no difficulty in rubbishing all of these traditions (I belong to the Christian one, regularly rubbished by one and all) so it will be uphill, but without it we are in trouble.
But that requires Islam to undergo an Enlightenment. So as a belief system it is able to accept and tolerate criticism, satire, cruel mockery
Judaism and Christianity have both undergone this process, there is absolutely no sign of this happening within Islam, indeed it is going in the opposite direction, becoming even more dogmatic, prickly, conservative, aggressive
So how do you solve that? Because unless you solve it, then it seems to me that conservative Islam is incompatible with liberal western freedoms as we know them, and we have imported one hell of a problem
Yes, that's very obviously a good point. it's possible that it is partially insoluble, but I don't feel certain. If I were responsible for the development of policies which helped in this direction, I would look at three things: the way in which even very conservative versions of Judaism and Christianity are a peaceful part of the mix in Britain; secondly look at the examples of thoughful and open Islam which exist - there are some in the cities and the universities - and thirdly have a careful look at the USA way of handling it which appears to have been quite successful.
There is a growing Islamic middle class in the UK (visit any hospital), and the middle class are usually reasonably good at coexistence.
Finally, Islamic history has remarkable examples of high culture, relative tolerance and stellar scholarship far too little known here.
Your final point is because the immigration we have allowed has been en masse rather than selective. If we had offered jobs to the best Islamic engineers, doctors, lawyers and so on, I’m sure the societal & economic frictions would be few. As it is, we’ve taken the equivalent of our WWC from the poor parts of Asian & African cities, thrown them in with the poorest English people and said get on with it. A recipe for disaster
I am not remotely defending the decades old inward migration policies. They are indefensible.
In the real world there are three possible approaches, none of them exclusive to themselves, given that we are where we are:
1) Mine (as above) 2) Remigration, to which I am absolutely hostile without qualification 3) Potential strife.
To govern is to choose.
But you haven't actually offered any answers. Merely reframed the problem
What are these "sane subtle" policies you propose?
I'd love to hear them because - much as I like drama - I don't actually want to see Europe fulfilling Betz's prediction of race war
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
It's obvious why they had to do it. And it's been remarkable the change in language online as a result - "road rage", "he panicked", "scared for his life", "a car hit pedestrians" (rather than "a driver").
You wouldn't phrase it like that for someone slashing people in a pub with a knife, and you certainly wouldn't be calling it road rage if it was a recent small boat Muslim immigrant. Perversely, prejudice against Liverpool fans was the response once the ethnicity was known.
But the statement has rather implied that rioting would be justified if it wasn't a white British man. That's why I'm uneasy with it.
The important thing the police wanted to get out was stop the racists from turning a disaster into a race riot (ala Southport). Because that was what various people were trying to do
It’s anti Islam rather than racists I’d say. Had the perpetrator been a black British Christian with his roots in the Caribbean there wouldn’t be riots, if it were a black Muslim refugee from east Africa there probably would
There are several million Islamic/Islamic heritage people permanently resident in the UK. This general fact isn't going to change even if net zero migration happened today.
An essential shift which has to happen to avoid disaster is a cultural shift whereby Islam is added to Judaism and Christianity and all three together considered under a common 'Abrahamic monotheistic faith' sort of umbrella, just as at the moment we speak often of the 'Judaeo/Christian' inheritance without finding it a disturbing concept.
There is of course no difficulty in rubbishing all of these traditions (I belong to the Christian one, regularly rubbished by one and all) so it will be uphill, but without it we are in trouble.
But that requires Islam to undergo an Enlightenment. So as a belief system it is able to accept and tolerate criticism, satire, cruel mockery
Judaism and Christianity have both undergone this process, there is absolutely no sign of this happening within Islam, indeed it is going in the opposite direction, becoming even more dogmatic, prickly, conservative, aggressive
So how do you solve that? Because unless you solve it, then it seems to me that conservative Islam is incompatible with liberal western freedoms as we know them, and we have imported one hell of a problem
Yes, that's very obviously a good point. it's possible that it is partially insoluble, but I don't feel certain. If I were responsible for the development of policies which helped in this direction, I would look at three things: the way in which even very conservative versions of Judaism and Christianity are a peaceful part of the mix in Britain; secondly look at the examples of thoughful and open Islam which exist - there are some in the cities and the universities - and thirdly have a careful look at the USA way of handling it which appears to have been quite successful.
There is a growing Islamic middle class in the UK (visit any hospital), and the middle class are usually reasonably good at coexistence.
Finally, Islamic history has remarkable examples of high culture, relative tolerance and stellar scholarship far too little known here.
Your final point is because the immigration we have allowed has been en masse rather than selective. If we had offered jobs to the best Islamic engineers, doctors, lawyers and so on, I’m sure the societal & economic frictions would be few. As it is, we’ve taken the equivalent of our WWC from the poor parts of Asian & African cities, thrown them in with the poorest English people and said get on with it. A recipe for disaster
I am not remotely defending the decades old inward migration policies. They are indefensible.
In the real world there are three possible approaches, none of them exclusive to themselves, given that we are where we are:
1) Mine (as above) 2) Remigration, to which I am absolutely hostile without qualification 3) Potential strife.
To govern is to choose.
I wasn’t disagreeing, but it will be very difficult. Hopefully we avoid 3)
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
They're such lying fucks. People don't believe them, and they're right to disbelieve
As you say they will do it when it suits - white British male, gammony face, they will release the info probably before the crime is actually committed. Others, not so much
I’ve already heard plenty of “futureproofing” from politicians etc today where they have been saying that of course they won’t always be able to announce the ethnicity of a suspect in future for various “operational reasons”.
So if it’s a white man there will not be any operational reasons to keep that quiet - which sort of causes the situation where whenever they don’t announce the race of a suspect then everyone will assume they are not white males and so the worst of society will use that to stir things up.
The core problem is that every time there's a crime we have a bunch of racists desperate for the perp to be not white so they can kick off.
This makes it hard for any general 'policy' to be implemented.
There are also plenty who hope the “perp” is a white far right person so they can kick off or feel virtuous.
Or those who support other football teams hoping it was by fans of a team they hate so they can use it as a stick whilst confirming their prejudices.
But the risk of violence is asymmetric, this is the key thing. It's a practical matter being grappled with - how to minimise the chance of racist riots - not some point of theory or ideology.
OK, so if there is assymetric risk we can treat different groups differently - good to know, could have sworn that was anathama racist profiling last I checked.
Oh for heaven's sake. It isn't some policy to preference non-whites in society. It's simply the police saying promptly the Liverpool culprit is a white Brit so as to discourage another Southport type reaction from racist elements.
Hmm. Reform UK Councillors in West Northants will refuse their diversity training:
A Reform UK council leader has confirmed that his group will not take part in diversity or climate training as part of their new roles as elected officials.
Mark Arnull, a Reform UK councillor, was appointed as the leader of West Northamptonshire Council on Wednesday.
He told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: "As it stands, I will stand with the policy and the councillors on the Reform group will not be attending the training." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwywg9j9y1xo
I will stand by my policy of not going within 100 feet of letterboxes in my role as postman
Hmm. Reform UK Councillors in West Northants will refuse their diversity training:
A Reform UK council leader has confirmed that his group will not take part in diversity or climate training as part of their new roles as elected officials.
Mark Arnull, a Reform UK councillor, was appointed as the leader of West Northamptonshire Council on Wednesday.
He told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: "As it stands, I will stand with the policy and the councillors on the Reform group will not be attending the training." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwywg9j9y1xo
Is the training mandatory? I know when I worked for Pembrokeshire county it was mandatory.
Hmm. Reform UK Councillors in West Northants will refuse their diversity training:
A Reform UK council leader has confirmed that his group will not take part in diversity or climate training as part of their new roles as elected officials.
Mark Arnull, a Reform UK councillor, was appointed as the leader of West Northamptonshire Council on Wednesday.
He told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: "As it stands, I will stand with the policy and the councillors on the Reform group will not be attending the training." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwywg9j9y1xo
Unless it is a statutory requirement no story could matter less.
I attended something last week which I would have avoided if possible. If I hadn't gone, I would ultimately have been barred from doing a particular piece of voluntary public service. So I went. I imagine millions of Brown Owls and youth sports helpers are in the same position. I envy the Reform councillors.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
They're such lying fucks. People don't believe them, and they're right to disbelieve
As you say they will do it when it suits - white British male, gammony face, they will release the info probably before the crime is actually committed. Others, not so much
I’ve already heard plenty of “futureproofing” from politicians etc today where they have been saying that of course they won’t always be able to announce the ethnicity of a suspect in future for various “operational reasons”.
So if it’s a white man there will not be any operational reasons to keep that quiet - which sort of causes the situation where whenever they don’t announce the race of a suspect then everyone will assume they are not white males and so the worst of society will use that to stir things up.
The core problem is that every time there's a crime we have a bunch of racists desperate for the perp to be not white so they can kick off.
This makes it hard for any general 'policy' to be implemented.
There are also plenty who hope the “perp” is a white far right person so they can kick off or feel virtuous.
Or those who support other football teams hoping it was by fans of a team they hate so they can use it as a stick whilst confirming their prejudices.
But the risk of violence is asymmetric, this is the key thing. It's a practical matter being grappled with - how to minimise the chance of racist riots - not some point of theory or ideology.
OK, so if there is assymetric risk we can treat different groups differently - good to know, could have sworn that was anathama racist profiling last I checked.
Oh for heaven's sake. It isn't some policy to preference non-whites in society. It's simply the police saying promptly the Liverpool culprit is a white Brit so as to discourage another Southport type reaction from racist elements.
I think they were right to do so, it was the pragmatic thing to do, but it negates the argument against Stop & Search, for example, being racist. It’s best the police do what’s best to stop crime & keep the peace, not be hamstrung by equality
Personally I think Kemi is doing a good job but I don't know how long she can last as leader with figures like this.
Regular crossover with the LDs is only a few weeks away.
There's another hatchet job on her in The Times this morning. Some bollocks about falling out with her official driver and then hiring her own car and driver at vast expense.
Watching a politician bleed out in real time is rare sport. You don't even have to feel sorry for her because she's tory scum.
She needs to sack every one of the poisonous snotrags at CCHQ whether she makes it or not. Might as well have some sort of legacy. If they briefed the press against Starmer at the same rate as they brief against Kemi the Tories would be 5 points ahead.
It's always the Times too.
I think it's Gove playing a George Smiley style deep game.
More Norman Smiley.
More like Carole Smilie.
First time in a while that anyone has used the word "smiley" in the context of the Conservative party.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
It's obvious why they had to do it. And it's been remarkable the change in language online as a result - "road rage", "he panicked", "scared for his life", "a car hit pedestrians" (rather than "a driver").
You wouldn't phrase it like that for someone slashing people in a pub with a knife, and you certainly wouldn't be calling it road rage if it was a recent small boat Muslim immigrant. Perversely, prejudice against Liverpool fans was the response once the ethnicity was known.
But the statement has rather implied that rioting would be justified if it wasn't a white British man. That's why I'm uneasy with it.
The important thing the police wanted to get out was stop the racists from turning a disaster into a race riot (ala Southport). Because that was what various people were trying to do
It’s anti Islam rather than racists I’d say. Had the perpetrator been a black British Christian with his roots in the Caribbean there wouldn’t be riots, if it were a black Muslim refugee from east Africa there probably would
There are several million Islamic/Islamic heritage people permanently resident in the UK. This general fact isn't going to change even if net zero migration happened today.
An essential shift which has to happen to avoid disaster is a cultural shift whereby Islam is added to Judaism and Christianity and all three together considered under a common 'Abrahamic monotheistic faith' sort of umbrella, just as at the moment we speak often of the 'Judaeo/Christian' inheritance without finding it a disturbing concept.
There is of course no difficulty in rubbishing all of these traditions (I belong to the Christian one, regularly rubbished by one and all) so it will be uphill, but without it we are in trouble.
But that requires Islam to undergo an Enlightenment. So as a belief system it is able to accept and tolerate criticism, satire, cruel mockery
Judaism and Christianity have both undergone this process, there is absolutely no sign of this happening within Islam, indeed it is going in the opposite direction, becoming even more dogmatic, prickly, conservative, aggressive
So how do you solve that? Because unless you solve it, then it seems to me that conservative Islam is incompatible with liberal western freedoms as we know them, and we have imported one hell of a problem
Yes, that's very obviously a good point. it's possible that it is partially insoluble, but I don't feel certain. If I were responsible for the development of policies which helped in this direction, I would look at three things: the way in which even very conservative versions of Judaism and Christianity are a peaceful part of the mix in Britain; secondly look at the examples of thoughful and open Islam which exist - there are some in the cities and the universities - and thirdly have a careful look at the USA way of handling it which appears to have been quite successful.
There is a growing Islamic middle class in the UK (visit any hospital), and the middle class are usually reasonably good at coexistence.
Finally, Islamic history has remarkable examples of high culture, relative tolerance and stellar scholarship far too little known here.
Your final point is because the immigration we have allowed has been en masse rather than selective. If we had offered jobs to the best Islamic engineers, doctors, lawyers and so on, I’m sure the societal & economic frictions would be few. As it is, we’ve taken the equivalent of our WWC from the poor parts of Asian & African cities, thrown them in with the poorest English people and said get on with it. A recipe for disaster
Looking back Merkel's "Let Them In" policy of 2015 seems ever more insane. We already knew by then that importing conservative Islam was a recipe for disorder and violence. Yet she did it
Angela Merkel was the most overrated politician of her generation. She got none of the big calls right.
Germany and the UK are duking it out for "worst run western countries of the last two decades"
I suspect, under Starmer, we take gold, but the Germans - as always - seem determined to fight us to the end
Hmm. Reform UK Councillors in West Northants will refuse their diversity training:
A Reform UK council leader has confirmed that his group will not take part in diversity or climate training as part of their new roles as elected officials.
Mark Arnull, a Reform UK councillor, was appointed as the leader of West Northamptonshire Council on Wednesday.
He told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: "As it stands, I will stand with the policy and the councillors on the Reform group will not be attending the training." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwywg9j9y1xo
Is the training mandatory? I know when I worked for Pembrokeshire county it was mandatory.
The term 'mandatory' is protean. It can mean 'An Act of Parliament says you will be imprisoned if you don't'. Or it can mean that HR in a leading paperclips wholesaler has decreed that everyone will do it.
In my experience people who make a living out of these courses hate people who ask things like that.
Hmm. Reform UK Councillors in West Northants will refuse their diversity training:
A Reform UK council leader has confirmed that his group will not take part in diversity or climate training as part of their new roles as elected officials.
Mark Arnull, a Reform UK councillor, was appointed as the leader of West Northamptonshire Council on Wednesday.
He told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: "As it stands, I will stand with the policy and the councillors on the Reform group will not be attending the training." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwywg9j9y1xo
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
It's obvious why they had to do it. And it's been remarkable the change in language online as a result - "road rage", "he panicked", "scared for his life", "a car hit pedestrians" (rather than "a driver").
You wouldn't phrase it like that for someone slashing people in a pub with a knife, and you certainly wouldn't be calling it road rage if it was a recent small boat Muslim immigrant. Perversely, prejudice against Liverpool fans was the response once the ethnicity was known.
But the statement has rather implied that rioting would be justified if it wasn't a white British man. That's why I'm uneasy with it.
The important thing the police wanted to get out was stop the racists from turning a disaster into a race riot (ala Southport). Because that was what various people were trying to do
It’s anti Islam rather than racists I’d say. Had the perpetrator been a black British Christian with his roots in the Caribbean there wouldn’t be riots, if it were a black Muslim refugee from east Africa there probably would
There are several million Islamic/Islamic heritage people permanently resident in the UK. This general fact isn't going to change even if net zero migration happened today.
An essential shift which has to happen to avoid disaster is a cultural shift whereby Islam is added to Judaism and Christianity and all three together considered under a common 'Abrahamic monotheistic faith' sort of umbrella, just as at the moment we speak often of the 'Judaeo/Christian' inheritance without finding it a disturbing concept.
There is of course no difficulty in rubbishing all of these traditions (I belong to the Christian one, regularly rubbished by one and all) so it will be uphill, but without it we are in trouble.
But that requires Islam to undergo an Enlightenment. So as a belief system it is able to accept and tolerate criticism, satire, cruel mockery
Judaism and Christianity have both undergone this process, there is absolutely no sign of this happening within Islam, indeed it is going in the opposite direction, becoming even more dogmatic, prickly, conservative, aggressive
So how do you solve that? Because unless you solve it, then it seems to me that conservative Islam is incompatible with liberal western freedoms as we know them, and we have imported one hell of a problem
Yes, that's very obviously a good point. it's possible that it is partially insoluble, but I don't feel certain. If I were responsible for the development of policies which helped in this direction, I would look at three things: the way in which even very conservative versions of Judaism and Christianity are a peaceful part of the mix in Britain; secondly look at the examples of thoughful and open Islam which exist - there are some in the cities and the universities - and thirdly have a careful look at the USA way of handling it which appears to have been quite successful.
There is a growing Islamic middle class in the UK (visit any hospital), and the middle class are usually reasonably good at coexistence.
Finally, Islamic history has remarkable examples of high culture, relative tolerance and stellar scholarship far too little known here.
Your final point is because the immigration we have allowed has been en masse rather than selective. If we had offered jobs to the best Islamic engineers, doctors, lawyers and so on, I’m sure the societal & economic frictions would be few. As it is, we’ve taken the equivalent of our WWC from the poor parts of Asian & African cities, thrown them in with the poorest English people and said get on with it. A recipe for disaster
I am not remotely defending the decades old inward migration policies. They are indefensible.
In the real world there are three possible approaches, none of them exclusive to themselves, given that we are where we are:
1) Mine (as above) 2) Remigration, to which I am absolutely hostile without qualification 3) Potential strife.
To govern is to choose.
I wasn’t disagreeing, but it will be very difficult. Hopefully we avoid 3)
If it were not difficult, it wouldn't need to be done. Easy stuff never reaches to the height of being politically important.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
It's obvious why they had to do it. And it's been remarkable the change in language online as a result - "road rage", "he panicked", "scared for his life", "a car hit pedestrians" (rather than "a driver").
You wouldn't phrase it like that for someone slashing people in a pub with a knife, and you certainly wouldn't be calling it road rage if it was a recent small boat Muslim immigrant. Perversely, prejudice against Liverpool fans was the response once the ethnicity was known.
But the statement has rather implied that rioting would be justified if it wasn't a white British man. That's why I'm uneasy with it.
The important thing the police wanted to get out was stop the racists from turning a disaster into a race riot (ala Southport). Because that was what various people were trying to do
It’s anti Islam rather than racists I’d say. Had the perpetrator been a black British Christian with his roots in the Caribbean there wouldn’t be riots, if it were a black Muslim refugee from east Africa there probably would
There are several million Islamic/Islamic heritage people permanently resident in the UK. This general fact isn't going to change even if net zero migration happened today.
An essential shift which has to happen to avoid disaster is a cultural shift whereby Islam is added to Judaism and Christianity and all three together considered under a common 'Abrahamic monotheistic faith' sort of umbrella, just as at the moment we speak often of the 'Judaeo/Christian' inheritance without finding it a disturbing concept.
There is of course no difficulty in rubbishing all of these traditions (I belong to the Christian one, regularly rubbished by one and all) so it will be uphill, but without it we are in trouble.
But that requires Islam to undergo an Enlightenment. So as a belief system it is able to accept and tolerate criticism, satire, cruel mockery
Judaism and Christianity have both undergone this process, there is absolutely no sign of this happening within Islam, indeed it is going in the opposite direction, becoming even more dogmatic, prickly, conservative, aggressive
So how do you solve that? Because unless you solve it, then it seems to me that conservative Islam is incompatible with liberal western freedoms as we know them, and we have imported one hell of a problem
Yes, that's very obviously a good point. it's possible that it is partially insoluble, but I don't feel certain. If I were responsible for the development of policies which helped in this direction, I would look at three things: the way in which even very conservative versions of Judaism and Christianity are a peaceful part of the mix in Britain; secondly look at the examples of thoughful and open Islam which exist - there are some in the cities and the universities - and thirdly have a careful look at the USA way of handling it which appears to have been quite successful.
There is a growing Islamic middle class in the UK (visit any hospital), and the middle class are usually reasonably good at coexistence.
Finally, Islamic history has remarkable examples of high culture, relative tolerance and stellar scholarship far too little known here.
Your final point is because the immigration we have allowed has been en masse rather than selective. If we had offered jobs to the best Islamic engineers, doctors, lawyers and so on, I’m sure the societal & economic frictions would be few. As it is, we’ve taken the equivalent of our WWC from the poor parts of Asian & African cities, thrown them in with the poorest English people and said get on with it. A recipe for disaster
I am not remotely defending the decades old inward migration policies. They are indefensible.
In the real world there are three possible approaches, none of them exclusive to themselves, given that we are where we are:
1) Mine (as above) 2) Remigration, to which I am absolutely hostile without qualification 3) Potential strife.
To govern is to choose.
But you haven't actually offered any answers. Merely reframed the problem
What are these "sane subtle" policies you propose?
I'd love to hear them because - much as I like drama - I don't actually want to see Europe fulfilling Betz's prediction of race war
Thanks. Fair point. I have said (above) where I start; 150 page White Paper to follow.
Hmm. Reform UK Councillors in West Northants will refuse their diversity training:
A Reform UK council leader has confirmed that his group will not take part in diversity or climate training as part of their new roles as elected officials.
Mark Arnull, a Reform UK councillor, was appointed as the leader of West Northamptonshire Council on Wednesday.
He told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: "As it stands, I will stand with the policy and the councillors on the Reform group will not be attending the training." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwywg9j9y1xo
Is the training mandatory? I know when I worked for Pembrokeshire county it was mandatory.
The term 'mandatory' is protean. It can mean 'An Act of Parliament says you will be imprisoned if you don't'. Or it can mean that HR in a leading paperclips wholesaler has decreed that everyone will do it.
In my experience people who make a living out of these courses hate people who ask things like that.
I presume it's set by the DLG or whatever name it goes under now. If they mandate it they mandate it and tough shit if Reform aren't up for it, they'll have to change the rules when they are the government. If its a council by council thing though they can do what they like I guess
Hmm. Reform UK Councillors in West Northants will refuse their diversity training:
A Reform UK council leader has confirmed that his group will not take part in diversity or climate training as part of their new roles as elected officials.
Mark Arnull, a Reform UK councillor, was appointed as the leader of West Northamptonshire Council on Wednesday.
He told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: "As it stands, I will stand with the policy and the councillors on the Reform group will not be attending the training." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwywg9j9y1xo
Is the training mandatory? I know when I worked for Pembrokeshire county it was mandatory.
The term 'mandatory' is protean. It can mean 'An Act of Parliament says you will be imprisoned if you don't'. Or it can mean that HR in a leading paperclips wholesaler has decreed that everyone will do it.
In my experience people who make a living out of these courses hate people who ask things like that.
I am sure Reform will be happy to be seen to having a dust up over this with council HR or Whitehall.
Quite a good point on X: the car reg from the Liverpool horror must be visible in one of the many videos
How hard is it to search the reg and find the owner? That's probably the perp
As more videos emerge it does look like this really is some hideous panic by the driver that turned into utter carnage. Tragic
Quite difficult, you need the V5C, and even then that's only the registered keeper, not the owner or driver.
And plenty of murder charges are levelled at people who "panic" and stab people in a fight, as we've seen with the Dumbiedykes murder in Edinburgh. It's quite astonishing how the language changes when you swap that kitchen knife for a two-tonne motor vehicle.
Quite a good point on X: the car reg from the Liverpool horror must be visible in one of the many videos
How hard is it to search the reg and find the owner? That's probably the perp
As more videos emerge it does look like this really is some hideous panic by the driver that turned into utter carnage. Tragic
Quite difficult, you need the V5C, and even then that's only the registered keeper, not the owner or driver.
And plenty of murder charges are levelled at people who "panic" and stab people in a fight, as we've seen with the Dumbiedykes murder in Edinburgh. It's quite astonishing how the language changes when you swap that kitchen knife for a two-tonne motor vehicle.
I was surprised the charges were dropped in the US case. The footage looked very bad.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
They're such lying fucks. People don't believe them, and they're right to disbelieve
As you say they will do it when it suits - white British male, gammony face, they will release the info probably before the crime is actually committed. Others, not so much
I’ve already heard plenty of “futureproofing” from politicians etc today where they have been saying that of course they won’t always be able to announce the ethnicity of a suspect in future for various “operational reasons”.
So if it’s a white man there will not be any operational reasons to keep that quiet - which sort of causes the situation where whenever they don’t announce the race of a suspect then everyone will assume they are not white males and so the worst of society will use that to stir things up.
The core problem is that every time there's a crime we have a bunch of racists desperate for the perp to be not white so they can kick off.
This makes it hard for any general 'policy' to be implemented.
There are also plenty who hope the “perp” is a white far right person so they can kick off or feel virtuous.
Or those who support other football teams hoping it was by fans of a team they hate so they can use it as a stick whilst confirming their prejudices.
But the risk of violence is asymmetric, this is the key thing. It's a practical matter being grappled with - how to minimise the chance of racist riots - not some point of theory or ideology.
OK, so if there is assymetric risk we can treat different groups differently - good to know, could have sworn that was anathama racist profiling last I checked.
Oh for heaven's sake. It isn't some policy to preference non-whites in society. It's simply the police saying promptly the Liverpool culprit is a white Brit so as to discourage another Southport type reaction from racist elements.
I'm starting to think it was a mistake. The far-right narrative is feeding off it anyway. Perhaps better to keep it secret and only reveal at the time the individual was charged, like normal, and embarrass all the numpties on twitter.
But when you've got the risk of Mosques being burned down...
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
It's obvious why they had to do it. And it's been remarkable the change in language online as a result - "road rage", "he panicked", "scared for his life", "a car hit pedestrians" (rather than "a driver").
You wouldn't phrase it like that for someone slashing people in a pub with a knife, and you certainly wouldn't be calling it road rage if it was a recent small boat Muslim immigrant. Perversely, prejudice against Liverpool fans was the response once the ethnicity was known.
But the statement has rather implied that rioting would be justified if it wasn't a white British man. That's why I'm uneasy with it.
The important thing the police wanted to get out was stop the racists from turning a disaster into a race riot (ala Southport). Because that was what various people were trying to do
It’s anti Islam rather than racists I’d say. Had the perpetrator been a black British Christian with his roots in the Caribbean there wouldn’t be riots, if it were a black Muslim refugee from east Africa there probably would
There are several million Islamic/Islamic heritage people permanently resident in the UK. This general fact isn't going to change even if net zero migration happened today.
An essential shift which has to happen to avoid disaster is a cultural shift whereby Islam is added to Judaism and Christianity and all three together considered under a common 'Abrahamic monotheistic faith' sort of umbrella, just as at the moment we speak often of the 'Judaeo/Christian' inheritance without finding it a disturbing concept.
There is of course no difficulty in rubbishing all of these traditions (I belong to the Christian one, regularly rubbished by one and all) so it will be uphill, but without it we are in trouble.
But that requires Islam to undergo an Enlightenment. So as a belief system it is able to accept and tolerate criticism, satire, cruel mockery
Judaism and Christianity have both undergone this process, there is absolutely no sign of this happening within Islam, indeed it is going in the opposite direction, becoming even more dogmatic, prickly, conservative, aggressive
So how do you solve that? Because unless you solve it, then it seems to me that conservative Islam is incompatible with liberal western freedoms as we know them, and we have imported one hell of a problem
Yes, that's very obviously a good point. it's possible that it is partially insoluble, but I don't feel certain. If I were responsible for the development of policies which helped in this direction, I would look at three things: the way in which even very conservative versions of Judaism and Christianity are a peaceful part of the mix in Britain; secondly look at the examples of thoughful and open Islam which exist - there are some in the cities and the universities - and thirdly have a careful look at the USA way of handling it which appears to have been quite successful.
There is a growing Islamic middle class in the UK (visit any hospital), and the middle class are usually reasonably good at coexistence.
Finally, Islamic history has remarkable examples of high culture, relative tolerance and stellar scholarship far too little known here.
Your final point is because the immigration we have allowed has been en masse rather than selective. If we had offered jobs to the best Islamic engineers, doctors, lawyers and so on, I’m sure the societal & economic frictions would be few. As it is, we’ve taken the equivalent of our WWC from the poor parts of Asian & African cities, thrown them in with the poorest English people and said get on with it. A recipe for disaster
Looking back Merkel's "Let Them In" policy of 2015 seems ever more insane. We already knew by then that importing conservative Islam was a recipe for disorder and violence. Yet she did it
Angela Merkel was the most overrated politician of her generation. She got none of the big calls right.
Germany and the UK are duking it out for "worst run western countries of the last two decades"
I suspect, under Starmer, we take gold, but the Germans - as always - seem determined to fight us to the end
Merkel was so horrifically bad, on immigration, energy, emu and much else, that it becomes almost kinder to think it premeditation of a genius deep sleeper rather incompetence.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
It's obvious why they had to do it. And it's been remarkable the change in language online as a result - "road rage", "he panicked", "scared for his life", "a car hit pedestrians" (rather than "a driver").
You wouldn't phrase it like that for someone slashing people in a pub with a knife, and you certainly wouldn't be calling it road rage if it was a recent small boat Muslim immigrant. Perversely, prejudice against Liverpool fans was the response once the ethnicity was known.
But the statement has rather implied that rioting would be justified if it wasn't a white British man. That's why I'm uneasy with it.
The important thing the police wanted to get out was stop the racists from turning a disaster into a race riot (ala Southport). Because that was what various people were trying to do
It’s anti Islam rather than racists I’d say. Had the perpetrator been a black British Christian with his roots in the Caribbean there wouldn’t be riots, if it were a black Muslim refugee from east Africa there probably would
There are several million Islamic/Islamic heritage people permanently resident in the UK. This general fact isn't going to change even if net zero migration happened today.
An essential shift which has to happen to avoid disaster is a cultural shift whereby Islam is added to Judaism and Christianity and all three together considered under a common 'Abrahamic monotheistic faith' sort of umbrella, just as at the moment we speak often of the 'Judaeo/Christian' inheritance without finding it a disturbing concept.
There is of course no difficulty in rubbishing all of these traditions (I belong to the Christian one, regularly rubbished by one and all) so it will be uphill, but without it we are in trouble.
But that requires Islam to undergo an Enlightenment. So as a belief system it is able to accept and tolerate criticism, satire, cruel mockery
Judaism and Christianity have both undergone this process, there is absolutely no sign of this happening within Islam, indeed it is going in the opposite direction, becoming even more dogmatic, prickly, conservative, aggressive
So how do you solve that? Because unless you solve it, then it seems to me that conservative Islam is incompatible with liberal western freedoms as we know them, and we have imported one hell of a problem
Yes, that's very obviously a good point. it's possible that it is partially insoluble, but I don't feel certain. If I were responsible for the development of policies which helped in this direction, I would look at three things: the way in which even very conservative versions of Judaism and Christianity are a peaceful part of the mix in Britain; secondly look at the examples of thoughful and open Islam which exist - there are some in the cities and the universities - and thirdly have a careful look at the USA way of handling it which appears to have been quite successful.
There is a growing Islamic middle class in the UK (visit any hospital), and the middle class are usually reasonably good at coexistence.
Finally, Islamic history has remarkable examples of high culture, relative tolerance and stellar scholarship far too little known here.
Muslim America is much better integrated because the Muslims tend to come from more liberal Islamic countries - eg Malaysia, Indonesia, India, UAE, dissident Iran - and to date they have tended to be quite wealthy from the off
America has almost no tradition of poor conservative Islamic migrants coming direct from say, Pakistan, Syria, Afghanistan, Algeria, Somalia, Kurdistan (tho this is beginning to change)
So it may just be that America got "lucky" in the provenance of its relatively small Muslim population
It's a grim situation for Europe, in contrast
It is exactly the potential for grim outcomes (Northern Ireland x 10,000) which gives the reason for sane and subtle policies now.
"Northern Ireland x 10,000" is ridiculous Islamophobic fearmongering.
Hmm. Reform UK Councillors in West Northants will refuse their diversity training:
A Reform UK council leader has confirmed that his group will not take part in diversity or climate training as part of their new roles as elected officials.
Mark Arnull, a Reform UK councillor, was appointed as the leader of West Northamptonshire Council on Wednesday.
He told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: "As it stands, I will stand with the policy and the councillors on the Reform group will not be attending the training." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwywg9j9y1xo
Hmm. Reform UK Councillors in West Northants will refuse their diversity training:
A Reform UK council leader has confirmed that his group will not take part in diversity or climate training as part of their new roles as elected officials.
Mark Arnull, a Reform UK councillor, was appointed as the leader of West Northamptonshire Council on Wednesday.
He told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: "As it stands, I will stand with the policy and the councillors on the Reform group will not be attending the training." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwywg9j9y1xo
Good.
I was reading a story t’other day, sadly cannot find the link, where whites had to do a DEI type course and non whites didnt. People were outraged at that. The thing that struck me was not that but the grift. The course was £1500 a day.
Sir Sadiq Khan has proposed a 20pc rise in London’s congestion charge and plans to scrap a discount for people who live within the zone unless they drive an electric vehicle (EV).
Transport for London (TfL), which is overseen by the Mayor, plans to raise the daily charge for driving in central London from £15 to £18 from January 2026. It will be the first increase since 2020, when the fee climbed from £11.50.
TfL also plans to close the residents’ discount scheme to new entrants unless they drive an EV. Currently, locals can qualify for a 90pc discount, a policy that has been in place since the congestion charge was introduced in 2003 by Ken Livingstone.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
They're such lying fucks. People don't believe them, and they're right to disbelieve
As you say they will do it when it suits - white British male, gammony face, they will release the info probably before the crime is actually committed. Others, not so much
I’ve already heard plenty of “futureproofing” from politicians etc today where they have been saying that of course they won’t always be able to announce the ethnicity of a suspect in future for various “operational reasons”.
So if it’s a white man there will not be any operational reasons to keep that quiet - which sort of causes the situation where whenever they don’t announce the race of a suspect then everyone will assume they are not white males and so the worst of society will use that to stir things up.
The core problem is that every time there's a crime we have a bunch of racists desperate for the perp to be not white so they can kick off.
This makes it hard for any general 'policy' to be implemented.
There are also plenty who hope the “perp” is a white far right person so they can kick off or feel virtuous.
Or those who support other football teams hoping it was by fans of a team they hate so they can use it as a stick whilst confirming their prejudices.
But the risk of violence is asymmetric, this is the key thing. It's a practical matter being grappled with - how to minimise the chance of racist riots - not some point of theory or ideology.
OK, so if there is assymetric risk we can treat different groups differently - good to know, could have sworn that was anathama racist profiling last I checked.
Oh for heaven's sake. It isn't some policy to preference non-whites in society. It's simply the police saying promptly the Liverpool culprit is a white Brit so as to discourage another Southport type reaction from racist elements.
I'm starting to think it was a mistake. The far-right narrative is feeding off it anyway. Perhaps better to keep it secret and only reveal at the time the individual was charged, like normal, and embarrass all the numpties on twitter.
But when you've got the risk of Mosques being burned down...
Brown people riot: brown people's fault for having no respect for our culture. White people riot: brown people's fault for being here. Seems to be the prevailing logic.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
It's obvious why they had to do it. And it's been remarkable the change in language online as a result - "road rage", "he panicked", "scared for his life", "a car hit pedestrians" (rather than "a driver").
You wouldn't phrase it like that for someone slashing people in a pub with a knife, and you certainly wouldn't be calling it road rage if it was a recent small boat Muslim immigrant. Perversely, prejudice against Liverpool fans was the response once the ethnicity was known.
But the statement has rather implied that rioting would be justified if it wasn't a white British man. That's why I'm uneasy with it.
The important thing the police wanted to get out was stop the racists from turning a disaster into a race riot (ala Southport). Because that was what various people were trying to do
It’s anti Islam rather than racists I’d say. Had the perpetrator been a black British Christian with his roots in the Caribbean there wouldn’t be riots, if it were a black Muslim refugee from east Africa there probably would
There are several million Islamic/Islamic heritage people permanently resident in the UK. This general fact isn't going to change even if net zero migration happened today.
An essential shift which has to happen to avoid disaster is a cultural shift whereby Islam is added to Judaism and Christianity and all three together considered under a common 'Abrahamic monotheistic faith' sort of umbrella, just as at the moment we speak often of the 'Judaeo/Christian' inheritance without finding it a disturbing concept.
There is of course no difficulty in rubbishing all of these traditions (I belong to the Christian one, regularly rubbished by one and all) so it will be uphill, but without it we are in trouble.
But that requires Islam to undergo an Enlightenment. So as a belief system it is able to accept and tolerate criticism, satire, cruel mockery
Judaism and Christianity have both undergone this process, there is absolutely no sign of this happening within Islam, indeed it is going in the opposite direction, becoming even more dogmatic, prickly, conservative, aggressive
So how do you solve that? Because unless you solve it, then it seems to me that conservative Islam is incompatible with liberal western freedoms as we know them, and we have imported one hell of a problem
Yes, that's very obviously a good point. it's possible that it is partially insoluble, but I don't feel certain. If I were responsible for the development of policies which helped in this direction, I would look at three things: the way in which even very conservative versions of Judaism and Christianity are a peaceful part of the mix in Britain; secondly look at the examples of thoughful and open Islam which exist - there are some in the cities and the universities - and thirdly have a careful look at the USA way of handling it which appears to have been quite successful.
There is a growing Islamic middle class in the UK (visit any hospital), and the middle class are usually reasonably good at coexistence.
Finally, Islamic history has remarkable examples of high culture, relative tolerance and stellar scholarship far too little known here.
Muslim America is much better integrated because the Muslims tend to come from more liberal Islamic countries - eg Malaysia, Indonesia, India, UAE, dissident Iran - and to date they have tended to be quite wealthy from the off
America has almost no tradition of poor conservative Islamic migrants coming direct from say, Pakistan, Syria, Afghanistan, Algeria, Somalia, Kurdistan (tho this is beginning to change)
So it may just be that America got "lucky" in the provenance of its relatively small Muslim population
It's a grim situation for Europe, in contrast
It is exactly the potential for grim outcomes (Northern Ireland x 10,000) which gives the reason for sane and subtle policies now.
"Northern Ireland x 10,000" is ridiculous Islamophobic fearmongering.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
It's obvious why they had to do it. And it's been remarkable the change in language online as a result - "road rage", "he panicked", "scared for his life", "a car hit pedestrians" (rather than "a driver").
You wouldn't phrase it like that for someone slashing people in a pub with a knife, and you certainly wouldn't be calling it road rage if it was a recent small boat Muslim immigrant. Perversely, prejudice against Liverpool fans was the response once the ethnicity was known.
But the statement has rather implied that rioting would be justified if it wasn't a white British man. That's why I'm uneasy with it.
The important thing the police wanted to get out was stop the racists from turning a disaster into a race riot (ala Southport). Because that was what various people were trying to do
It’s anti Islam rather than racists I’d say. Had the perpetrator been a black British Christian with his roots in the Caribbean there wouldn’t be riots, if it were a black Muslim refugee from east Africa there probably would
There are several million Islamic/Islamic heritage people permanently resident in the UK. This general fact isn't going to change even if net zero migration happened today.
An essential shift which has to happen to avoid disaster is a cultural shift whereby Islam is added to Judaism and Christianity and all three together considered under a common 'Abrahamic monotheistic faith' sort of umbrella, just as at the moment we speak often of the 'Judaeo/Christian' inheritance without finding it a disturbing concept.
There is of course no difficulty in rubbishing all of these traditions (I belong to the Christian one, regularly rubbished by one and all) so it will be uphill, but without it we are in trouble.
But that requires Islam to undergo an Enlightenment. So as a belief system it is able to accept and tolerate criticism, satire, cruel mockery
Judaism and Christianity have both undergone this process, there is absolutely no sign of this happening within Islam, indeed it is going in the opposite direction, becoming even more dogmatic, prickly, conservative, aggressive
So how do you solve that? Because unless you solve it, then it seems to me that conservative Islam is incompatible with liberal western freedoms as we know them, and we have imported one hell of a problem
Yes, that's very obviously a good point. it's possible that it is partially insoluble, but I don't feel certain. If I were responsible for the development of policies which helped in this direction, I would look at three things: the way in which even very conservative versions of Judaism and Christianity are a peaceful part of the mix in Britain; secondly look at the examples of thoughful and open Islam which exist - there are some in the cities and the universities - and thirdly have a careful look at the USA way of handling it which appears to have been quite successful.
There is a growing Islamic middle class in the UK (visit any hospital), and the middle class are usually reasonably good at coexistence.
Finally, Islamic history has remarkable examples of high culture, relative tolerance and stellar scholarship far too little known here.
Your final point is because the immigration we have allowed has been en masse rather than selective. If we had offered jobs to the best Islamic engineers, doctors, lawyers and so on, I’m sure the societal & economic frictions would be few. As it is, we’ve taken the equivalent of our WWC from the poor parts of Asian & African cities, thrown them in with the poorest English people and said get on with it. A recipe for disaster
I am not remotely defending the decades old inward migration policies. They are indefensible.
In the real world there are three possible approaches, none of them exclusive to themselves, given that we are where we are:
1) Mine (as above) 2) Remigration, to which I am absolutely hostile without qualification 3) Potential strife.
To govern is to choose.
But you haven't actually offered any answers. Merely reframed the problem
What are these "sane subtle" policies you propose?
I'd love to hear them because - much as I like drama - I don't actually want to see Europe fulfilling Betz's prediction of race war
Could you have a quick word with the editor of the Spectator and suggest he spends a few months majoring on readable articles on solutions to things - this and others suggest themselves - as that august journal is becoming/has become a posh version of the Daily Getsworse and Daily Whyohwhy interspersed with reviews of unreadable books. And some excellent travel writing.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
They're such lying fucks. People don't believe them, and they're right to disbelieve
As you say they will do it when it suits - white British male, gammony face, they will release the info probably before the crime is actually committed. Others, not so much
I’ve already heard plenty of “futureproofing” from politicians etc today where they have been saying that of course they won’t always be able to announce the ethnicity of a suspect in future for various “operational reasons”.
So if it’s a white man there will not be any operational reasons to keep that quiet - which sort of causes the situation where whenever they don’t announce the race of a suspect then everyone will assume they are not white males and so the worst of society will use that to stir things up.
The core problem is that every time there's a crime we have a bunch of racists desperate for the perp to be not white so they can kick off.
This makes it hard for any general 'policy' to be implemented.
There are also plenty who hope the “perp” is a white far right person so they can kick off or feel virtuous.
Or those who support other football teams hoping it was by fans of a team they hate so they can use it as a stick whilst confirming their prejudices.
But the risk of violence is asymmetric, this is the key thing. It's a practical matter being grappled with - how to minimise the chance of racist riots - not some point of theory or ideology.
OK, so if there is assymetric risk we can treat different groups differently - good to know, could have sworn that was anathama racist profiling last I checked.
Oh for heaven's sake. It isn't some policy to preference non-whites in society. It's simply the police saying promptly the Liverpool culprit is a white Brit so as to discourage another Southport type reaction from racist elements.
I'm starting to think it was a mistake. The far-right narrative is feeding off it anyway. Perhaps better to keep it secret and only reveal at the time the individual was charged, like normal, and embarrass all the numpties on twitter.
But when you've got the risk of Mosques being burned down...
The far right will make up something to complain about whatever you do.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
They're such lying fucks. People don't believe them, and they're right to disbelieve
As you say they will do it when it suits - white British male, gammony face, they will release the info probably before the crime is actually committed. Others, not so much
I’ve already heard plenty of “futureproofing” from politicians etc today where they have been saying that of course they won’t always be able to announce the ethnicity of a suspect in future for various “operational reasons”.
So if it’s a white man there will not be any operational reasons to keep that quiet - which sort of causes the situation where whenever they don’t announce the race of a suspect then everyone will assume they are not white males and so the worst of society will use that to stir things up.
The core problem is that every time there's a crime we have a bunch of racists desperate for the perp to be not white so they can kick off.
This makes it hard for any general 'policy' to be implemented.
There are also plenty who hope the “perp” is a white far right person so they can kick off or feel virtuous.
Or those who support other football teams hoping it was by fans of a team they hate so they can use it as a stick whilst confirming their prejudices.
But the risk of violence is asymmetric, this is the key thing. It's a practical matter being grappled with - how to minimise the chance of racist riots - not some point of theory or ideology.
OK, so if there is assymetric risk we can treat different groups differently - good to know, could have sworn that was anathama racist profiling last I checked.
Oh for heaven's sake. It isn't some policy to preference non-whites in society. It's simply the police saying promptly the Liverpool culprit is a white Brit so as to discourage another Southport type reaction from racist elements.
I'm starting to think it was a mistake. The far-right narrative is feeding off it anyway. Perhaps better to keep it secret and only reveal at the time the individual was charged, like normal, and embarrass all the numpties on twitter.
But when you've got the risk of Mosques being burned down...
The far right will make up something to complain about whatever you do.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
It's obvious why they had to do it. And it's been remarkable the change in language online as a result - "road rage", "he panicked", "scared for his life", "a car hit pedestrians" (rather than "a driver").
You wouldn't phrase it like that for someone slashing people in a pub with a knife, and you certainly wouldn't be calling it road rage if it was a recent small boat Muslim immigrant. Perversely, prejudice against Liverpool fans was the response once the ethnicity was known.
But the statement has rather implied that rioting would be justified if it wasn't a white British man. That's why I'm uneasy with it.
The important thing the police wanted to get out was stop the racists from turning a disaster into a race riot (ala Southport). Because that was what various people were trying to do
It’s anti Islam rather than racists I’d say. Had the perpetrator been a black British Christian with his roots in the Caribbean there wouldn’t be riots, if it were a black Muslim refugee from east Africa there probably would
There are several million Islamic/Islamic heritage people permanently resident in the UK. This general fact isn't going to change even if net zero migration happened today.
An essential shift which has to happen to avoid disaster is a cultural shift whereby Islam is added to Judaism and Christianity and all three together considered under a common 'Abrahamic monotheistic faith' sort of umbrella, just as at the moment we speak often of the 'Judaeo/Christian' inheritance without finding it a disturbing concept.
There is of course no difficulty in rubbishing all of these traditions (I belong to the Christian one, regularly rubbished by one and all) so it will be uphill, but without it we are in trouble.
But that requires Islam to undergo an Enlightenment. So as a belief system it is able to accept and tolerate criticism, satire, cruel mockery
Judaism and Christianity have both undergone this process, there is absolutely no sign of this happening within Islam, indeed it is going in the opposite direction, becoming even more dogmatic, prickly, conservative, aggressive
So how do you solve that? Because unless you solve it, then it seems to me that conservative Islam is incompatible with liberal western freedoms as we know them, and we have imported one hell of a problem
Yes, that's very obviously a good point. it's possible that it is partially insoluble, but I don't feel certain. If I were responsible for the development of policies which helped in this direction, I would look at three things: the way in which even very conservative versions of Judaism and Christianity are a peaceful part of the mix in Britain; secondly look at the examples of thoughful and open Islam which exist - there are some in the cities and the universities - and thirdly have a careful look at the USA way of handling it which appears to have been quite successful.
There is a growing Islamic middle class in the UK (visit any hospital), and the middle class are usually reasonably good at coexistence.
Finally, Islamic history has remarkable examples of high culture, relative tolerance and stellar scholarship far too little known here.
Muslim America is much better integrated because the Muslims tend to come from more liberal Islamic countries - eg Malaysia, Indonesia, India, UAE, dissident Iran - and to date they have tended to be quite wealthy from the off
America has almost no tradition of poor conservative Islamic migrants coming direct from say, Pakistan, Syria, Afghanistan, Algeria, Somalia, Kurdistan (tho this is beginning to change)
So it may just be that America got "lucky" in the provenance of its relatively small Muslim population
It's a grim situation for Europe, in contrast
It is exactly the potential for grim outcomes (Northern Ireland x 10,000) which gives the reason for sane and subtle policies now.
"Northern Ireland x 10,000" is ridiculous Islamophobic fearmongering.
Apologies. It was merely an off the cuff description of what it would be for there to be pan-European religiously based civil strife, taking NI as a very tiny and remote bit of the continent, and uprating it to compare with the 30 Years War, and the European catastrophes of 1914-1945. I shall do better.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
It's obvious why they had to do it. And it's been remarkable the change in language online as a result - "road rage", "he panicked", "scared for his life", "a car hit pedestrians" (rather than "a driver").
You wouldn't phrase it like that for someone slashing people in a pub with a knife, and you certainly wouldn't be calling it road rage if it was a recent small boat Muslim immigrant. Perversely, prejudice against Liverpool fans was the response once the ethnicity was known.
But the statement has rather implied that rioting would be justified if it wasn't a white British man. That's why I'm uneasy with it.
The important thing the police wanted to get out was stop the racists from turning a disaster into a race riot (ala Southport). Because that was what various people were trying to do
It’s anti Islam rather than racists I’d say. Had the perpetrator been a black British Christian with his roots in the Caribbean there wouldn’t be riots, if it were a black Muslim refugee from east Africa there probably would
There are several million Islamic/Islamic heritage people permanently resident in the UK. This general fact isn't going to change even if net zero migration happened today.
An essential shift which has to happen to avoid disaster is a cultural shift whereby Islam is added to Judaism and Christianity and all three together considered under a common 'Abrahamic monotheistic faith' sort of umbrella, just as at the moment we speak often of the 'Judaeo/Christian' inheritance without finding it a disturbing concept.
There is of course no difficulty in rubbishing all of these traditions (I belong to the Christian one, regularly rubbished by one and all) so it will be uphill, but without it we are in trouble.
But that requires Islam to undergo an Enlightenment. So as a belief system it is able to accept and tolerate criticism, satire, cruel mockery
Judaism and Christianity have both undergone this process, there is absolutely no sign of this happening within Islam, indeed it is going in the opposite direction, becoming even more dogmatic, prickly, conservative, aggressive
So how do you solve that? Because unless you solve it, then it seems to me that conservative Islam is incompatible with liberal western freedoms as we know them, and we have imported one hell of a problem
Yes, that's very obviously a good point. it's possible that it is partially insoluble, but I don't feel certain. If I were responsible for the development of policies which helped in this direction, I would look at three things: the way in which even very conservative versions of Judaism and Christianity are a peaceful part of the mix in Britain; secondly look at the examples of thoughful and open Islam which exist - there are some in the cities and the universities - and thirdly have a careful look at the USA way of handling it which appears to have been quite successful.
There is a growing Islamic middle class in the UK (visit any hospital), and the middle class are usually reasonably good at coexistence.
Finally, Islamic history has remarkable examples of high culture, relative tolerance and stellar scholarship far too little known here.
Muslim America is much better integrated because the Muslims tend to come from more liberal Islamic countries - eg Malaysia, Indonesia, India, UAE, dissident Iran - and to date they have tended to be quite wealthy from the off
America has almost no tradition of poor conservative Islamic migrants coming direct from say, Pakistan, Syria, Afghanistan, Algeria, Somalia, Kurdistan (tho this is beginning to change)
So it may just be that America got "lucky" in the provenance of its relatively small Muslim population
It's a grim situation for Europe, in contrast
It is exactly the potential for grim outcomes (Northern Ireland x 10,000) which gives the reason for sane and subtle policies now.
"Northern Ireland x 10,000" is ridiculous Islamophobic fearmongering.
Sir Sadiq Khan has proposed a 20pc rise in London’s congestion charge and plans to scrap a discount for people who live within the zone unless they drive an electric vehicle (EV).
Transport for London (TfL), which is overseen by the Mayor, plans to raise the daily charge for driving in central London from £15 to £18 from January 2026. It will be the first increase since 2020, when the fee climbed from £11.50.
TfL also plans to close the residents’ discount scheme to new entrants unless they drive an EV. Currently, locals can qualify for a 90pc discount, a policy that has been in place since the congestion charge was introduced in 2003 by Ken Livingstone.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
It's obvious why they had to do it. And it's been remarkable the change in language online as a result - "road rage", "he panicked", "scared for his life", "a car hit pedestrians" (rather than "a driver").
You wouldn't phrase it like that for someone slashing people in a pub with a knife, and you certainly wouldn't be calling it road rage if it was a recent small boat Muslim immigrant. Perversely, prejudice against Liverpool fans was the response once the ethnicity was known.
But the statement has rather implied that rioting would be justified if it wasn't a white British man. That's why I'm uneasy with it.
The important thing the police wanted to get out was stop the racists from turning a disaster into a race riot (ala Southport). Because that was what various people were trying to do
It’s anti Islam rather than racists I’d say. Had the perpetrator been a black British Christian with his roots in the Caribbean there wouldn’t be riots, if it were a black Muslim refugee from east Africa there probably would
There are several million Islamic/Islamic heritage people permanently resident in the UK. This general fact isn't going to change even if net zero migration happened today.
An essential shift which has to happen to avoid disaster is a cultural shift whereby Islam is added to Judaism and Christianity and all three together considered under a common 'Abrahamic monotheistic faith' sort of umbrella, just as at the moment we speak often of the 'Judaeo/Christian' inheritance without finding it a disturbing concept.
There is of course no difficulty in rubbishing all of these traditions (I belong to the Christian one, regularly rubbished by one and all) so it will be uphill, but without it we are in trouble.
But that requires Islam to undergo an Enlightenment. So as a belief system it is able to accept and tolerate criticism, satire, cruel mockery
Judaism and Christianity have both undergone this process, there is absolutely no sign of this happening within Islam, indeed it is going in the opposite direction, becoming even more dogmatic, prickly, conservative, aggressive
So how do you solve that? Because unless you solve it, then it seems to me that conservative Islam is incompatible with liberal western freedoms as we know them, and we have imported one hell of a problem
Yes, that's very obviously a good point. it's possible that it is partially insoluble, but I don't feel certain. If I were responsible for the development of policies which helped in this direction, I would look at three things: the way in which even very conservative versions of Judaism and Christianity are a peaceful part of the mix in Britain; secondly look at the examples of thoughful and open Islam which exist - there are some in the cities and the universities - and thirdly have a careful look at the USA way of handling it which appears to have been quite successful.
There is a growing Islamic middle class in the UK (visit any hospital), and the middle class are usually reasonably good at coexistence.
Finally, Islamic history has remarkable examples of high culture, relative tolerance and stellar scholarship far too little known here.
Muslim America is much better integrated because the Muslims tend to come from more liberal Islamic countries - eg Malaysia, Indonesia, India, UAE, dissident Iran - and to date they have tended to be quite wealthy from the off
America has almost no tradition of poor conservative Islamic migrants coming direct from say, Pakistan, Syria, Afghanistan, Algeria, Somalia, Kurdistan (tho this is beginning to change)
So it may just be that America got "lucky" in the provenance of its relatively small Muslim population
It's a grim situation for Europe, in contrast
It is exactly the potential for grim outcomes (Northern Ireland x 10,000) which gives the reason for sane and subtle policies now.
"Northern Ireland x 10,000" is ridiculous Islamophobic fearmongering.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
It's obvious why they had to do it. And it's been remarkable the change in language online as a result - "road rage", "he panicked", "scared for his life", "a car hit pedestrians" (rather than "a driver").
You wouldn't phrase it like that for someone slashing people in a pub with a knife, and you certainly wouldn't be calling it road rage if it was a recent small boat Muslim immigrant. Perversely, prejudice against Liverpool fans was the response once the ethnicity was known.
But the statement has rather implied that rioting would be justified if it wasn't a white British man. That's why I'm uneasy with it.
The important thing the police wanted to get out was stop the racists from turning a disaster into a race riot (ala Southport). Because that was what various people were trying to do
It’s anti Islam rather than racists I’d say. Had the perpetrator been a black British Christian with his roots in the Caribbean there wouldn’t be riots, if it were a black Muslim refugee from east Africa there probably would
There are several million Islamic/Islamic heritage people permanently resident in the UK. This general fact isn't going to change even if net zero migration happened today.
An essential shift which has to happen to avoid disaster is a cultural shift whereby Islam is added to Judaism and Christianity and all three together considered under a common 'Abrahamic monotheistic faith' sort of umbrella, just as at the moment we speak often of the 'Judaeo/Christian' inheritance without finding it a disturbing concept.
There is of course no difficulty in rubbishing all of these traditions (I belong to the Christian one, regularly rubbished by one and all) so it will be uphill, but without it we are in trouble.
But that requires Islam to undergo an Enlightenment. So as a belief system it is able to accept and tolerate criticism, satire, cruel mockery
Judaism and Christianity have both undergone this process, there is absolutely no sign of this happening within Islam, indeed it is going in the opposite direction, becoming even more dogmatic, prickly, conservative, aggressive
So how do you solve that? Because unless you solve it, then it seems to me that conservative Islam is incompatible with liberal western freedoms as we know them, and we have imported one hell of a problem
Yes, that's very obviously a good point. it's possible that it is partially insoluble, but I don't feel certain. If I were responsible for the development of policies which helped in this direction, I would look at three things: the way in which even very conservative versions of Judaism and Christianity are a peaceful part of the mix in Britain; secondly look at the examples of thoughful and open Islam which exist - there are some in the cities and the universities - and thirdly have a careful look at the USA way of handling it which appears to have been quite successful.
There is a growing Islamic middle class in the UK (visit any hospital), and the middle class are usually reasonably good at coexistence.
Finally, Islamic history has remarkable examples of high culture, relative tolerance and stellar scholarship far too little known here.
Muslim America is much better integrated because the Muslims tend to come from more liberal Islamic countries - eg Malaysia, Indonesia, India, UAE, dissident Iran - and to date they have tended to be quite wealthy from the off
America has almost no tradition of poor conservative Islamic migrants coming direct from say, Pakistan, Syria, Afghanistan, Algeria, Somalia, Kurdistan (tho this is beginning to change)
So it may just be that America got "lucky" in the provenance of its relatively small Muslim population
It's a grim situation for Europe, in contrast
It is exactly the potential for grim outcomes (Northern Ireland x 10,000) which gives the reason for sane and subtle policies now.
"Northern Ireland x 10,000" is ridiculous Islamophobic fearmongering.
Apologies. It was merely an off the cuff description of what it would be for there to be pan-European religiously based civil strife, taking NI as a very tiny and remote bit of the continent, and uprating it to compare with the 30 Years War, and the European catastrophes of 1914-1945. I shall do better.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
They're such lying fucks. People don't believe them, and they're right to disbelieve
As you say they will do it when it suits - white British male, gammony face, they will release the info probably before the crime is actually committed. Others, not so much
I’ve already heard plenty of “futureproofing” from politicians etc today where they have been saying that of course they won’t always be able to announce the ethnicity of a suspect in future for various “operational reasons”.
So if it’s a white man there will not be any operational reasons to keep that quiet - which sort of causes the situation where whenever they don’t announce the race of a suspect then everyone will assume they are not white males and so the worst of society will use that to stir things up.
The core problem is that every time there's a crime we have a bunch of racists desperate for the perp to be not white so they can kick off.
This makes it hard for any general 'policy' to be implemented.
There are also plenty who hope the “perp” is a white far right person so they can kick off or feel virtuous.
Or those who support other football teams hoping it was by fans of a team they hate so they can use it as a stick whilst confirming their prejudices.
But the risk of violence is asymmetric, this is the key thing. It's a practical matter being grappled with - how to minimise the chance of racist riots - not some point of theory or ideology.
OK, so if there is assymetric risk we can treat different groups differently - good to know, could have sworn that was anathama racist profiling last I checked.
Oh for heaven's sake. It isn't some policy to preference non-whites in society. It's simply the police saying promptly the Liverpool culprit is a white Brit so as to discourage another Southport type reaction from racist elements.
I'm starting to think it was a mistake. The far-right narrative is feeding off it anyway. Perhaps better to keep it secret and only reveal at the time the individual was charged, like normal, and embarrass all the numpties on twitter.
But when you've got the risk of Mosques being burned down...
If they're told it's a Muslim they'll riot.
If they're not told anything they will assume it's a Muslim and they'll riot.
If they're told it's not a Muslim they say it's "two tier" policing, which risks causing them to riot.
Sir Sadiq Khan has proposed a 20pc rise in London’s congestion charge and plans to scrap a discount for people who live within the zone unless they drive an electric vehicle (EV).
Transport for London (TfL), which is overseen by the Mayor, plans to raise the daily charge for driving in central London from £15 to £18 from January 2026. It will be the first increase since 2020, when the fee climbed from £11.50.
TfL also plans to close the residents’ discount scheme to new entrants unless they drive an EV. Currently, locals can qualify for a 90pc discount, a policy that has been in place since the congestion charge was introduced in 2003 by Ken Livingstone.
Be interesting if Musk is true to his word and before the next London Mayoral election, city road transport is almost completely displaced with his robocabs. A policy challenge I’m not sure they’ve even begun to properly consider yet.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
It's obvious why they had to do it. And it's been remarkable the change in language online as a result - "road rage", "he panicked", "scared for his life", "a car hit pedestrians" (rather than "a driver").
You wouldn't phrase it like that for someone slashing people in a pub with a knife, and you certainly wouldn't be calling it road rage if it was a recent small boat Muslim immigrant. Perversely, prejudice against Liverpool fans was the response once the ethnicity was known.
But the statement has rather implied that rioting would be justified if it wasn't a white British man. That's why I'm uneasy with it.
The important thing the police wanted to get out was stop the racists from turning a disaster into a race riot (ala Southport). Because that was what various people were trying to do
It’s anti Islam rather than racists I’d say. Had the perpetrator been a black British Christian with his roots in the Caribbean there wouldn’t be riots, if it were a black Muslim refugee from east Africa there probably would
There are several million Islamic/Islamic heritage people permanently resident in the UK. This general fact isn't going to change even if net zero migration happened today.
An essential shift which has to happen to avoid disaster is a cultural shift whereby Islam is added to Judaism and Christianity and all three together considered under a common 'Abrahamic monotheistic faith' sort of umbrella, just as at the moment we speak often of the 'Judaeo/Christian' inheritance without finding it a disturbing concept.
There is of course no difficulty in rubbishing all of these traditions (I belong to the Christian one, regularly rubbished by one and all) so it will be uphill, but without it we are in trouble.
But that requires Islam to undergo an Enlightenment. So as a belief system it is able to accept and tolerate criticism, satire, cruel mockery
Judaism and Christianity have both undergone this process, there is absolutely no sign of this happening within Islam, indeed it is going in the opposite direction, becoming even more dogmatic, prickly, conservative, aggressive
So how do you solve that? Because unless you solve it, then it seems to me that conservative Islam is incompatible with liberal western freedoms as we know them, and we have imported one hell of a problem
Yes, that's very obviously a good point. it's possible that it is partially insoluble, but I don't feel certain. If I were responsible for the development of policies which helped in this direction, I would look at three things: the way in which even very conservative versions of Judaism and Christianity are a peaceful part of the mix in Britain; secondly look at the examples of thoughful and open Islam which exist - there are some in the cities and the universities - and thirdly have a careful look at the USA way of handling it which appears to have been quite successful.
There is a growing Islamic middle class in the UK (visit any hospital), and the middle class are usually reasonably good at coexistence.
Finally, Islamic history has remarkable examples of high culture, relative tolerance and stellar scholarship far too little known here.
Your final point is because the immigration we have allowed has been en masse rather than selective. If we had offered jobs to the best Islamic engineers, doctors, lawyers and so on, I’m sure the societal & economic frictions would be few. As it is, we’ve taken the equivalent of our WWC from the poor parts of Asian & African cities, thrown them in with the poorest English people and said get on with it. A recipe for disaster
Looking back Merkel's "Let Them In" policy of 2015 seems ever more insane. We already knew by then that importing conservative Islam was a recipe for disorder and violence. Yet she did it
Angela Merkel was the most overrated politician of her generation. She got none of the big calls right.
Germany and the UK are duking it out for "worst run western countries of the last two decades"
I suspect, under Starmer, we take gold, but the Germans - as always - seem determined to fight us to the end
Although the US is finishing like a train and might well nick it.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
They're such lying fucks. People don't believe them, and they're right to disbelieve
As you say they will do it when it suits - white British male, gammony face, they will release the info probably before the crime is actually committed. Others, not so much
I’ve already heard plenty of “futureproofing” from politicians etc today where they have been saying that of course they won’t always be able to announce the ethnicity of a suspect in future for various “operational reasons”.
So if it’s a white man there will not be any operational reasons to keep that quiet - which sort of causes the situation where whenever they don’t announce the race of a suspect then everyone will assume they are not white males and so the worst of society will use that to stir things up.
The core problem is that every time there's a crime we have a bunch of racists desperate for the perp to be not white so they can kick off.
This makes it hard for any general 'policy' to be implemented.
There are also plenty who hope the “perp” is a white far right person so they can kick off or feel virtuous.
Or those who support other football teams hoping it was by fans of a team they hate so they can use it as a stick whilst confirming their prejudices.
But the risk of violence is asymmetric, this is the key thing. It's a practical matter being grappled with - how to minimise the chance of racist riots - not some point of theory or ideology.
OK, so if there is assymetric risk we can treat different groups differently - good to know, could have sworn that was anathama racist profiling last I checked.
Oh for heaven's sake. It isn't some policy to preference non-whites in society. It's simply the police saying promptly the Liverpool culprit is a white Brit so as to discourage another Southport type reaction from racist elements.
I'm starting to think it was a mistake. The far-right narrative is feeding off it anyway. Perhaps better to keep it secret and only reveal at the time the individual was charged, like normal, and embarrass all the numpties on twitter.
But when you've got the risk of Mosques being burned down...
If they're told it's a Muslim they'll riot.
If they're not told anything they will assume it's a Muslim and they'll riot.
If they're told it's not a Muslim they say it's "two tier" policing, which risks causing them to riot.
Not sure about that, they have been told it’s not a Muslim (although technically a white British male could still be one) and they’re not rioting.
A post criticising Farage, but something quite quite striking in the clip; he explicitly references Starmer’s jibes about him (loves Putin, hates the NHS). Rare for a politician to do that I think
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
It's obvious why they had to do it. And it's been remarkable the change in language online as a result - "road rage", "he panicked", "scared for his life", "a car hit pedestrians" (rather than "a driver").
You wouldn't phrase it like that for someone slashing people in a pub with a knife, and you certainly wouldn't be calling it road rage if it was a recent small boat Muslim immigrant. Perversely, prejudice against Liverpool fans was the response once the ethnicity was known.
But the statement has rather implied that rioting would be justified if it wasn't a white British man. That's why I'm uneasy with it.
The important thing the police wanted to get out was stop the racists from turning a disaster into a race riot (ala Southport). Because that was what various people were trying to do
It’s anti Islam rather than racists I’d say. Had the perpetrator been a black British Christian with his roots in the Caribbean there wouldn’t be riots, if it were a black Muslim refugee from east Africa there probably would
There are several million Islamic/Islamic heritage people permanently resident in the UK. This general fact isn't going to change even if net zero migration happened today.
An essential shift which has to happen to avoid disaster is a cultural shift whereby Islam is added to Judaism and Christianity and all three together considered under a common 'Abrahamic monotheistic faith' sort of umbrella, just as at the moment we speak often of the 'Judaeo/Christian' inheritance without finding it a disturbing concept.
There is of course no difficulty in rubbishing all of these traditions (I belong to the Christian one, regularly rubbished by one and all) so it will be uphill, but without it we are in trouble.
But that requires Islam to undergo an Enlightenment. So as a belief system it is able to accept and tolerate criticism, satire, cruel mockery
Judaism and Christianity have both undergone this process, there is absolutely no sign of this happening within Islam, indeed it is going in the opposite direction, becoming even more dogmatic, prickly, conservative, aggressive
So how do you solve that? Because unless you solve it, then it seems to me that conservative Islam is incompatible with liberal western freedoms as we know them, and we have imported one hell of a problem
Yes, that's very obviously a good point. it's possible that it is partially insoluble, but I don't feel certain. If I were responsible for the development of policies which helped in this direction, I would look at three things: the way in which even very conservative versions of Judaism and Christianity are a peaceful part of the mix in Britain; secondly look at the examples of thoughful and open Islam which exist - there are some in the cities and the universities - and thirdly have a careful look at the USA way of handling it which appears to have been quite successful.
There is a growing Islamic middle class in the UK (visit any hospital), and the middle class are usually reasonably good at coexistence.
Finally, Islamic history has remarkable examples of high culture, relative tolerance and stellar scholarship far too little known here.
Your final point is because the immigration we have allowed has been en masse rather than selective. If we had offered jobs to the best Islamic engineers, doctors, lawyers and so on, I’m sure the societal & economic frictions would be few. As it is, we’ve taken the equivalent of our WWC from the poor parts of Asian & African cities, thrown them in with the poorest English people and said get on with it. A recipe for disaster
I am not remotely defending the decades old inward migration policies. They are indefensible.
In the real world there are three possible approaches, none of them exclusive to themselves, given that we are where we are:
1) Mine (as above) 2) Remigration, to which I am absolutely hostile without qualification 3) Potential strife.
To govern is to choose.
But you haven't actually offered any answers. Merely reframed the problem
What are these "sane subtle" policies you propose?
I'd love to hear them because - much as I like drama - I don't actually want to see Europe fulfilling Betz's prediction of race war
Thanks. Fair point. I have said (above) where I start; 150 page White Paper to follow.
So, no actual ideas then
That's not a critique, the problem may be intractable and outright violence is coming, whatever
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
They're such lying fucks. People don't believe them, and they're right to disbelieve
As you say they will do it when it suits - white British male, gammony face, they will release the info probably before the crime is actually committed. Others, not so much
I’ve already heard plenty of “futureproofing” from politicians etc today where they have been saying that of course they won’t always be able to announce the ethnicity of a suspect in future for various “operational reasons”.
So if it’s a white man there will not be any operational reasons to keep that quiet - which sort of causes the situation where whenever they don’t announce the race of a suspect then everyone will assume they are not white males and so the worst of society will use that to stir things up.
The core problem is that every time there's a crime we have a bunch of racists desperate for the perp to be not white so they can kick off.
This makes it hard for any general 'policy' to be implemented.
There are also plenty who hope the “perp” is a white far right person so they can kick off or feel virtuous.
Or those who support other football teams hoping it was by fans of a team they hate so they can use it as a stick whilst confirming their prejudices.
But the risk of violence is asymmetric, this is the key thing. It's a practical matter being grappled with - how to minimise the chance of racist riots - not some point of theory or ideology.
OK, so if there is assymetric risk we can treat different groups differently - good to know, could have sworn that was anathama racist profiling last I checked.
Oh for heaven's sake. It isn't some policy to preference non-whites in society. It's simply the police saying promptly the Liverpool culprit is a white Brit so as to discourage another Southport type reaction from racist elements.
I'm starting to think it was a mistake. The far-right narrative is feeding off it anyway. Perhaps better to keep it secret and only reveal at the time the individual was charged, like normal, and embarrass all the numpties on twitter.
But when you've got the risk of Mosques being burned down...
If they're told it's a Muslim they'll riot.
If they're not told anything they will assume it's a Muslim and they'll riot.
If they're told it's not a Muslim they say it's "two tier" policing, which risks causing them to riot.
I'm shocked, shocked I say, at the "two tier" snowflakery of PB's Reform adjacent posters.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
It's obvious why they had to do it. And it's been remarkable the change in language online as a result - "road rage", "he panicked", "scared for his life", "a car hit pedestrians" (rather than "a driver").
You wouldn't phrase it like that for someone slashing people in a pub with a knife, and you certainly wouldn't be calling it road rage if it was a recent small boat Muslim immigrant. Perversely, prejudice against Liverpool fans was the response once the ethnicity was known.
But the statement has rather implied that rioting would be justified if it wasn't a white British man. That's why I'm uneasy with it.
The important thing the police wanted to get out was stop the racists from turning a disaster into a race riot (ala Southport). Because that was what various people were trying to do
It’s anti Islam rather than racists I’d say. Had the perpetrator been a black British Christian with his roots in the Caribbean there wouldn’t be riots, if it were a black Muslim refugee from east Africa there probably would
There are several million Islamic/Islamic heritage people permanently resident in the UK. This general fact isn't going to change even if net zero migration happened today.
An essential shift which has to happen to avoid disaster is a cultural shift whereby Islam is added to Judaism and Christianity and all three together considered under a common 'Abrahamic monotheistic faith' sort of umbrella, just as at the moment we speak often of the 'Judaeo/Christian' inheritance without finding it a disturbing concept.
There is of course no difficulty in rubbishing all of these traditions (I belong to the Christian one, regularly rubbished by one and all) so it will be uphill, but without it we are in trouble.
But that requires Islam to undergo an Enlightenment. So as a belief system it is able to accept and tolerate criticism, satire, cruel mockery
Judaism and Christianity have both undergone this process, there is absolutely no sign of this happening within Islam, indeed it is going in the opposite direction, becoming even more dogmatic, prickly, conservative, aggressive
So how do you solve that? Because unless you solve it, then it seems to me that conservative Islam is incompatible with liberal western freedoms as we know them, and we have imported one hell of a problem
Yes, that's very obviously a good point. it's possible that it is partially insoluble, but I don't feel certain. If I were responsible for the development of policies which helped in this direction, I would look at three things: the way in which even very conservative versions of Judaism and Christianity are a peaceful part of the mix in Britain; secondly look at the examples of thoughful and open Islam which exist - there are some in the cities and the universities - and thirdly have a careful look at the USA way of handling it which appears to have been quite successful.
There is a growing Islamic middle class in the UK (visit any hospital), and the middle class are usually reasonably good at coexistence.
Finally, Islamic history has remarkable examples of high culture, relative tolerance and stellar scholarship far too little known here.
Your final point is because the immigration we have allowed has been en masse rather than selective. If we had offered jobs to the best Islamic engineers, doctors, lawyers and so on, I’m sure the societal & economic frictions would be few. As it is, we’ve taken the equivalent of our WWC from the poor parts of Asian & African cities, thrown them in with the poorest English people and said get on with it. A recipe for disaster
Looking back Merkel's "Let Them In" policy of 2015 seems ever more insane. We already knew by then that importing conservative Islam was a recipe for disorder and violence. Yet she did it
Angela Merkel was the most overrated politician of her generation. She got none of the big calls right.
Germany and the UK are duking it out for "worst run western countries of the last two decades"
I suspect, under Starmer, we take gold, but the Germans - as always - seem determined to fight us to the end
Although the US is finishing like a train and might well nick it.
The USA is saved from the podium by its powering economy, which even Trump cannot fuck up
A post criticising Farage, but something quite quite striking in the clip; he explicitly references Starmer’s jibes about him (loves Putin, hates the NHS). Rare for a politician to do that I think
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
They're such lying fucks. People don't believe them, and they're right to disbelieve
As you say they will do it when it suits - white British male, gammony face, they will release the info probably before the crime is actually committed. Others, not so much
I’ve already heard plenty of “futureproofing” from politicians etc today where they have been saying that of course they won’t always be able to announce the ethnicity of a suspect in future for various “operational reasons”.
So if it’s a white man there will not be any operational reasons to keep that quiet - which sort of causes the situation where whenever they don’t announce the race of a suspect then everyone will assume they are not white males and so the worst of society will use that to stir things up.
The core problem is that every time there's a crime we have a bunch of racists desperate for the perp to be not white so they can kick off.
This makes it hard for any general 'policy' to be implemented.
There are also plenty who hope the “perp” is a white far right person so they can kick off or feel virtuous.
Or those who support other football teams hoping it was by fans of a team they hate so they can use it as a stick whilst confirming their prejudices.
But the risk of violence is asymmetric, this is the key thing. It's a practical matter being grappled with - how to minimise the chance of racist riots - not some point of theory or ideology.
OK, so if there is assymetric risk we can treat different groups differently - good to know, could have sworn that was anathama racist profiling last I checked.
Oh for heaven's sake. It isn't some policy to preference non-whites in society. It's simply the police saying promptly the Liverpool culprit is a white Brit so as to discourage another Southport type reaction from racist elements.
I'm starting to think it was a mistake. The far-right narrative is feeding off it anyway. Perhaps better to keep it secret and only reveal at the time the individual was charged, like normal, and embarrass all the numpties on twitter.
But when you've got the risk of Mosques being burned down...
If they're told it's a Muslim they'll riot.
If they're not told anything they will assume it's a Muslim and they'll riot.
If they're told it's not a Muslim they say it's "two tier" policing, which risks causing them to riot.
Not sure about that, they have been told it’s not a Muslim (although technically a white British male could still be one) and they’re not rioting.
But fury (!) about the cops rushing to say it was a WBM is building.
(technically yes - it could have been Cat Stevens)
Sir Sadiq Khan has proposed a 20pc rise in London’s congestion charge and plans to scrap a discount for people who live within the zone unless they drive an electric vehicle (EV).
Transport for London (TfL), which is overseen by the Mayor, plans to raise the daily charge for driving in central London from £15 to £18 from January 2026. It will be the first increase since 2020, when the fee climbed from £11.50.
TfL also plans to close the residents’ discount scheme to new entrants unless they drive an EV. Currently, locals can qualify for a 90pc discount, a policy that has been in place since the congestion charge was introduced in 2003 by Ken Livingstone.
Be interesting if Musk is true to his word and before the next London Mayoral election, city road transport is almost completely displaced with his robocabs. A policy challenge I’m not sure they’ve even begun to properly consider yet.
Worth remembering that there are thousands of Waymo vehicles on the streets of San Francisco, Phoenix, Los Angeles and Austin.
By contrast there are zero Tesla robotaxis.
For there to be autonomous Tesla robotaxis in London means you have to believe
(a) that they will be able to offer (in city) autonomous driving without LIDAR at acceptable levels of safety (b) they will overcome massive regulatory scrutiny (and insurance requirements)
Plus, of course, there's an awful lot of infrastructure you need to build to offer these: whether it is dedicated charging stations (going to be tough to site in London) or warehouses full of people able to take over if a vehicle stops due to unfamiliar circumstances and need to be manually controlled.
I would be staggered if there were Tesla robotaxis on the streets of London before the end of this decade.
---
Edit to add: in the US, especially on the West Coast, I can see Tesla launching robotaxi services in the next couple of years. (Albeit not in 2025.) But London is an entirely different kettle of fish: much, much harder to navigate around - and much denser - than cities built around the car.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
They're such lying fucks. People don't believe them, and they're right to disbelieve
As you say they will do it when it suits - white British male, gammony face, they will release the info probably before the crime is actually committed. Others, not so much
I’ve already heard plenty of “futureproofing” from politicians etc today where they have been saying that of course they won’t always be able to announce the ethnicity of a suspect in future for various “operational reasons”.
So if it’s a white man there will not be any operational reasons to keep that quiet - which sort of causes the situation where whenever they don’t announce the race of a suspect then everyone will assume they are not white males and so the worst of society will use that to stir things up.
The core problem is that every time there's a crime we have a bunch of racists desperate for the perp to be not white so they can kick off.
This makes it hard for any general 'policy' to be implemented.
There are also plenty who hope the “perp” is a white far right person so they can kick off or feel virtuous.
Or those who support other football teams hoping it was by fans of a team they hate so they can use it as a stick whilst confirming their prejudices.
But the risk of violence is asymmetric, this is the key thing. It's a practical matter being grappled with - how to minimise the chance of racist riots - not some point of theory or ideology.
OK, so if there is assymetric risk we can treat different groups differently - good to know, could have sworn that was anathama racist profiling last I checked.
Oh for heaven's sake. It isn't some policy to preference non-whites in society. It's simply the police saying promptly the Liverpool culprit is a white Brit so as to discourage another Southport type reaction from racist elements.
I'm starting to think it was a mistake. The far-right narrative is feeding off it anyway. Perhaps better to keep it secret and only reveal at the time the individual was charged, like normal, and embarrass all the numpties on twitter.
But when you've got the risk of Mosques being burned down...
If they're told it's a Muslim they'll riot.
If they're not told anything they will assume it's a Muslim and they'll riot.
If they're told it's not a Muslim they say it's "two tier" policing, which risks causing them to riot.
The privileged have always spoken like that about the lower orders.
"If they're told there's no bread they'll riot.
If they're not told anything they'll assume there's no bread and they'll riot.
If they're told there is bread then they'll ask who ate all the cake, which risks causing them to riot."
Sir Sadiq Khan has proposed a 20pc rise in London’s congestion charge and plans to scrap a discount for people who live within the zone unless they drive an electric vehicle (EV).
Transport for London (TfL), which is overseen by the Mayor, plans to raise the daily charge for driving in central London from £15 to £18 from January 2026. It will be the first increase since 2020, when the fee climbed from £11.50.
TfL also plans to close the residents’ discount scheme to new entrants unless they drive an EV. Currently, locals can qualify for a 90pc discount, a policy that has been in place since the congestion charge was introduced in 2003 by Ken Livingstone.
Be interesting if Musk is true to his word and before the next London Mayoral election, city road transport is almost completely displaced with his robocabs. A policy challenge I’m not sure they’ve even begun to properly consider yet.
Worth remembering that there are thousands of Waymo vehicles on the streets of San Francisco, Phoenix, Los Angeles and Austin.
By contrast there are zero Tesla robotaxis.
For there to be autonomous Tesla robotaxis in London means you have to believe
(a) that they will be able to offer (in city) autonomous driving without LIDAR at acceptable levels of safety (b) they will overcome massive regulatory scrutiny (and insurance requirements)
Plus, of course, there's an awful lot of infrastructure you need to build to offer these: whether it is dedicated charging stations (going to be tough to site in London) or warehouses full of people able to take over if a vehicle stops due to unfamiliar circumstances and need to be manually controlled.
I would be staggered if there were Tesla robotaxis on the streets of London before the end of this decade.
I find it interesting that so many of the Chinese EVs come with LiDAR as standard.
I have just received an email from a famous London teaching hospital. Its most prominent link is to drdoctor.zendesk.com – a URL not obviously connected with the hospital.
This is what I (and others) mean when we say the powers that be are conditioning us to blindly click on phishing links.
To add insult to injury, that url looks like it has been misconfigured twice, once by the hospital but also by the DrDoctor team, since it exposes and goes to the zendesk domain.
This is why we can't buy anything from the Co-op or pay for anything from M&S, or is it the other way round? Someone clicks on a dodgy link in an email and Bob's the hacker's uncle.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
It's obvious why they had to do it. And it's been remarkable the change in language online as a result - "road rage", "he panicked", "scared for his life", "a car hit pedestrians" (rather than "a driver").
You wouldn't phrase it like that for someone slashing people in a pub with a knife, and you certainly wouldn't be calling it road rage if it was a recent small boat Muslim immigrant. Perversely, prejudice against Liverpool fans was the response once the ethnicity was known.
But the statement has rather implied that rioting would be justified if it wasn't a white British man. That's why I'm uneasy with it.
The important thing the police wanted to get out was stop the racists from turning a disaster into a race riot (ala Southport). Because that was what various people were trying to do
It’s anti Islam rather than racists I’d say. Had the perpetrator been a black British Christian with his roots in the Caribbean there wouldn’t be riots, if it were a black Muslim refugee from east Africa there probably would
There are several million Islamic/Islamic heritage people permanently resident in the UK. This general fact isn't going to change even if net zero migration happened today.
An essential shift which has to happen to avoid disaster is a cultural shift whereby Islam is added to Judaism and Christianity and all three together considered under a common 'Abrahamic monotheistic faith' sort of umbrella, just as at the moment we speak often of the 'Judaeo/Christian' inheritance without finding it a disturbing concept.
There is of course no difficulty in rubbishing all of these traditions (I belong to the Christian one, regularly rubbished by one and all) so it will be uphill, but without it we are in trouble.
But that requires Islam to undergo an Enlightenment. So as a belief system it is able to accept and tolerate criticism, satire, cruel mockery
Judaism and Christianity have both undergone this process, there is absolutely no sign of this happening within Islam, indeed it is going in the opposite direction, becoming even more dogmatic, prickly, conservative, aggressive
So how do you solve that? Because unless you solve it, then it seems to me that conservative Islam is incompatible with liberal western freedoms as we know them, and we have imported one hell of a problem
Yes, that's very obviously a good point. it's possible that it is partially insoluble, but I don't feel certain. If I were responsible for the development of policies which helped in this direction, I would look at three things: the way in which even very conservative versions of Judaism and Christianity are a peaceful part of the mix in Britain; secondly look at the examples of thoughful and open Islam which exist - there are some in the cities and the universities - and thirdly have a careful look at the USA way of handling it which appears to have been quite successful.
There is a growing Islamic middle class in the UK (visit any hospital), and the middle class are usually reasonably good at coexistence.
Finally, Islamic history has remarkable examples of high culture, relative tolerance and stellar scholarship far too little known here.
Muslim America is much better integrated because the Muslims tend to come from more liberal Islamic countries - eg Malaysia, Indonesia, India, UAE, dissident Iran - and to date they have tended to be quite wealthy from the off
America has almost no tradition of poor conservative Islamic migrants coming direct from say, Pakistan, Syria, Afghanistan, Algeria, Somalia, Kurdistan (tho this is beginning to change)
So it may just be that America got "lucky" in the provenance of its relatively small Muslim population
It's a grim situation for Europe, in contrast
It is exactly the potential for grim outcomes (Northern Ireland x 10,000) which gives the reason for sane and subtle policies now.
"Northern Ireland x 10,000" is ridiculous Islamophobic fearmongering.
Apologies. It was merely an off the cuff description of what it would be for there to be pan-European religiously based civil strife, taking NI as a very tiny and remote bit of the continent, and uprating it to compare with the 30 Years War, and the European catastrophes of 1914-1945. I shall do better.
Partition of India?
With a wider lens looks more like the gradual Saxon supremacy in post Roman Britain to me. Fertility differentials and migration patterns could comfortably see Britain become a majority Muslim nation by 2100. Certain other European countries could see this happen decades sooner one supposes. But I concede it’s a little silly to extrapolate so far into the future, given the social and technological cascades that will crystallise in the next 10-20 years.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
They're such lying fucks. People don't believe them, and they're right to disbelieve
As you say they will do it when it suits - white British male, gammony face, they will release the info probably before the crime is actually committed. Others, not so much
I’ve already heard plenty of “futureproofing” from politicians etc today where they have been saying that of course they won’t always be able to announce the ethnicity of a suspect in future for various “operational reasons”.
So if it’s a white man there will not be any operational reasons to keep that quiet - which sort of causes the situation where whenever they don’t announce the race of a suspect then everyone will assume they are not white males and so the worst of society will use that to stir things up.
The core problem is that every time there's a crime we have a bunch of racists desperate for the perp to be not white so they can kick off.
This makes it hard for any general 'policy' to be implemented.
There are also plenty who hope the “perp” is a white far right person so they can kick off or feel virtuous.
Or those who support other football teams hoping it was by fans of a team they hate so they can use it as a stick whilst confirming their prejudices.
But the risk of violence is asymmetric, this is the key thing. It's a practical matter being grappled with - how to minimise the chance of racist riots - not some point of theory or ideology.
OK, so if there is assymetric risk we can treat different groups differently - good to know, could have sworn that was anathama racist profiling last I checked.
Oh for heaven's sake. It isn't some policy to preference non-whites in society. It's simply the police saying promptly the Liverpool culprit is a white Brit so as to discourage another Southport type reaction from racist elements.
I think they were right to do so, it was the pragmatic thing to do, but it negates the argument against Stop & Search, for example, being racist. It’s best the police do what’s best to stop crime & keep the peace, not be hamstrung by equality
SAS isn't racist so long as the skin colour of who you're stopping isn't a factor.
Sir Sadiq Khan has proposed a 20pc rise in London’s congestion charge and plans to scrap a discount for people who live within the zone unless they drive an electric vehicle (EV).
Transport for London (TfL), which is overseen by the Mayor, plans to raise the daily charge for driving in central London from £15 to £18 from January 2026. It will be the first increase since 2020, when the fee climbed from £11.50.
TfL also plans to close the residents’ discount scheme to new entrants unless they drive an EV. Currently, locals can qualify for a 90pc discount, a policy that has been in place since the congestion charge was introduced in 2003 by Ken Livingstone.
Be interesting if Musk is true to his word and before the next London Mayoral election, city road transport is almost completely displaced with his robocabs. A policy challenge I’m not sure they’ve even begun to properly consider yet.
Worth remembering that there are thousands of Waymo vehicles on the streets of San Francisco, Phoenix, Los Angeles and Austin.
By contrast there are zero Tesla robotaxis.
For there to be autonomous Tesla robotaxis in London means you have to believe
(a) that they will be able to offer (in city) autonomous driving without LIDAR at acceptable levels of safety (b) they will overcome massive regulatory scrutiny (and insurance requirements)
Plus, of course, there's an awful lot of infrastructure you need to build to offer these: whether it is dedicated charging stations (going to be tough to site in London) or warehouses full of people able to take over if a vehicle stops due to unfamiliar circumstances and need to be manually controlled.
I would be staggered if there were Tesla robotaxis on the streets of London before the end of this decade.
---
Edit to add: in the US, especially on the West Coast, I can see Tesla launching robotaxi services in the next couple of years. (Albeit not in 2025.) But London is an entirely different kettle of fish: much, much harder to navigate around - and much denser - than cities built around the car.
I’d be staggered if there weren’t to be honest with you. The Waymo solution has never been truly scalable, or most likely particularly economic.
Elon Musk has been promising full self driving every year since 2015.
I’m not sure if many people here work in the software engineering industry but the term is vapourware.
Tesla's FSD in the US is incredibly impressive. I mean staggeringly impressive.
You enter a destination, you hit go, and then you hand off control to FSD.
And 90% of the time, your car will do all the driving for you, including changing lane, stopping at lights, navigating, etc.
The problem is that it's far from foolproof today - you are highly likely to be required to take control (even if only momentarily) on a journey. And it's quite jarring: the system tells you screechingly "take control no". And if you don't take control within a few seconds, it locks you out the system.
It also makes irritating mistakes far too often. I got stopped behind an Amazon delivery vehicle in the right hand (i.e. pedestrian side). There were two lanes. My car decided it was stuck in a traffic jam , and refused to change lanes and go around the van. I had to disengage FSD and manually go around it.
We shouldn't underestimate the awesome technical achievement that is Tesla FSD.
At the same time, we need to remember that 99.9% (which we're not at yet) isn't good enough for a Robotaxi. It needs to be 99.99999%. And those last tenths and hundredths of a percent - those really tough edge cases - are hard.
Sir Sadiq Khan has proposed a 20pc rise in London’s congestion charge and plans to scrap a discount for people who live within the zone unless they drive an electric vehicle (EV).
Transport for London (TfL), which is overseen by the Mayor, plans to raise the daily charge for driving in central London from £15 to £18 from January 2026. It will be the first increase since 2020, when the fee climbed from £11.50.
TfL also plans to close the residents’ discount scheme to new entrants unless they drive an EV. Currently, locals can qualify for a 90pc discount, a policy that has been in place since the congestion charge was introduced in 2003 by Ken Livingstone.
Be interesting if Musk is true to his word and before the next London Mayoral election, city road transport is almost completely displaced with his robocabs. A policy challenge I’m not sure they’ve even begun to properly consider yet.
Worth remembering that there are thousands of Waymo vehicles on the streets of San Francisco, Phoenix, Los Angeles and Austin.
By contrast there are zero Tesla robotaxis.
For there to be autonomous Tesla robotaxis in London means you have to believe
(a) that they will be able to offer (in city) autonomous driving without LIDAR at acceptable levels of safety (b) they will overcome massive regulatory scrutiny (and insurance requirements)
Plus, of course, there's an awful lot of infrastructure you need to build to offer these: whether it is dedicated charging stations (going to be tough to site in London) or warehouses full of people able to take over if a vehicle stops due to unfamiliar circumstances and need to be manually controlled.
I would be staggered if there were Tesla robotaxis on the streets of London before the end of this decade.
---
Edit to add: in the US, especially on the West Coast, I can see Tesla launching robotaxi services in the next couple of years. (Albeit not in 2025.) But London is an entirely different kettle of fish: much, much harder to navigate around - and much denser - than cities built around the car.
I’d be staggered if there weren’t to be honest with you. The Waymo solution has never been truly scalable, or most likely particularly economic.
Happy to make a bet with you on this one if you like: given we're both staggered, shall we say evens.
Commercial robotaxi service powered by Teslas on the streets of London before 1 January 2030? £100?
A 53-year-old man from West Derby has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder, dangerous driving offences and driving while unfit through drugs, police say.
A 53-year-old man from West Derby has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder, dangerous driving offences and driving while unfit through drugs, police say.
Should point out that West Derby is not in Derbyshire, its in Liverpool. I had to look that up!
Sir Sadiq Khan has proposed a 20pc rise in London’s congestion charge and plans to scrap a discount for people who live within the zone unless they drive an electric vehicle (EV).
Transport for London (TfL), which is overseen by the Mayor, plans to raise the daily charge for driving in central London from £15 to £18 from January 2026. It will be the first increase since 2020, when the fee climbed from £11.50.
TfL also plans to close the residents’ discount scheme to new entrants unless they drive an EV. Currently, locals can qualify for a 90pc discount, a policy that has been in place since the congestion charge was introduced in 2003 by Ken Livingstone.
Be interesting if Musk is true to his word and before the next London Mayoral election, city road transport is almost completely displaced with his robocabs. A policy challenge I’m not sure they’ve even begun to properly consider yet.
Worth remembering that there are thousands of Waymo vehicles on the streets of San Francisco, Phoenix, Los Angeles and Austin.
By contrast there are zero Tesla robotaxis.
For there to be autonomous Tesla robotaxis in London means you have to believe
(a) that they will be able to offer (in city) autonomous driving without LIDAR at acceptable levels of safety (b) they will overcome massive regulatory scrutiny (and insurance requirements)
Plus, of course, there's an awful lot of infrastructure you need to build to offer these: whether it is dedicated charging stations (going to be tough to site in London) or warehouses full of people able to take over if a vehicle stops due to unfamiliar circumstances and need to be manually controlled.
I would be staggered if there were Tesla robotaxis on the streets of London before the end of this decade.
I find it interesting that so many of the Chinese EVs come with LiDAR as standard.
Yes: the cost of LiDAR is collapsing. When Tesla decided not to go that route, it seemed sensible, because LiDAR added $10,000 to the cost of a vehicle. Now, $30,000 Chinese vehicles include multiple LiDAR sensors, each costing a few hundred dollars each.
I don't believe it'll be long before the cost is below $100 a vehicle.
At that point, you're crazy not to have it, because it's ability to see through things like fog is so impressive compared to camera based systems.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
They're such lying fucks. People don't believe them, and they're right to disbelieve
As you say they will do it when it suits - white British male, gammony face, they will release the info probably before the crime is actually committed. Others, not so much
I’ve already heard plenty of “futureproofing” from politicians etc today where they have been saying that of course they won’t always be able to announce the ethnicity of a suspect in future for various “operational reasons”.
So if it’s a white man there will not be any operational reasons to keep that quiet - which sort of causes the situation where whenever they don’t announce the race of a suspect then everyone will assume they are not white males and so the worst of society will use that to stir things up.
The core problem is that every time there's a crime we have a bunch of racists desperate for the perp to be not white so they can kick off.
This makes it hard for any general 'policy' to be implemented.
There are also plenty who hope the “perp” is a white far right person so they can kick off or feel virtuous.
Or those who support other football teams hoping it was by fans of a team they hate so they can use it as a stick whilst confirming their prejudices.
But the risk of violence is asymmetric, this is the key thing. It's a practical matter being grappled with - how to minimise the chance of racist riots - not some point of theory or ideology.
OK, so if there is assymetric risk we can treat different groups differently - good to know, could have sworn that was anathama racist profiling last I checked.
Oh for heaven's sake. It isn't some policy to preference non-whites in society. It's simply the police saying promptly the Liverpool culprit is a white Brit so as to discourage another Southport type reaction from racist elements.
I'm starting to think it was a mistake. The far-right narrative is feeding off it anyway. Perhaps better to keep it secret and only reveal at the time the individual was charged, like normal, and embarrass all the numpties on twitter.
But when you've got the risk of Mosques being burned down...
If they're told it's a Muslim they'll riot.
If they're not told anything they will assume it's a Muslim and they'll riot.
If they're told it's not a Muslim they say it's "two tier" policing, which risks causing them to riot.
I'm shocked, shocked I say, at the "two tier" snowflakery of PB's Reform adjacent posters.
Yes. Although tbf I'm going to exempt the most Reformy of all of them (isam) who is being quite adult on this one.
At the same time, we need to remember that 99.9% (which we're not at yet) isn't good enough for a Robotaxi. It needs to be 99.99999%. And those last tenths and hundredths of a percent - those really tough edge cases - are hard.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
It's obvious why they had to do it. And it's been remarkable the change in language online as a result - "road rage", "he panicked", "scared for his life", "a car hit pedestrians" (rather than "a driver").
You wouldn't phrase it like that for someone slashing people in a pub with a knife, and you certainly wouldn't be calling it road rage if it was a recent small boat Muslim immigrant. Perversely, prejudice against Liverpool fans was the response once the ethnicity was known.
But the statement has rather implied that rioting would be justified if it wasn't a white British man. That's why I'm uneasy with it.
The important thing the police wanted to get out was stop the racists from turning a disaster into a race riot (ala Southport). Because that was what various people were trying to do
It’s anti Islam rather than racists I’d say. Had the perpetrator been a black British Christian with his roots in the Caribbean there wouldn’t be riots, if it were a black Muslim refugee from east Africa there probably would
There are several million Islamic/Islamic heritage people permanently resident in the UK. This general fact isn't going to change even if net zero migration happened today.
An essential shift which has to happen to avoid disaster is a cultural shift whereby Islam is added to Judaism and Christianity and all three together considered under a common 'Abrahamic monotheistic faith' sort of umbrella, just as at the moment we speak often of the 'Judaeo/Christian' inheritance without finding it a disturbing concept.
There is of course no difficulty in rubbishing all of these traditions (I belong to the Christian one, regularly rubbished by one and all) so it will be uphill, but without it we are in trouble.
But that requires Islam to undergo an Enlightenment. So as a belief system it is able to accept and tolerate criticism, satire, cruel mockery
Judaism and Christianity have both undergone this process, there is absolutely no sign of this happening within Islam, indeed it is going in the opposite direction, becoming even more dogmatic, prickly, conservative, aggressive
So how do you solve that? Because unless you solve it, then it seems to me that conservative Islam is incompatible with liberal western freedoms as we know them, and we have imported one hell of a problem
Yes, that's very obviously a good point. it's possible that it is partially insoluble, but I don't feel certain. If I were responsible for the development of policies which helped in this direction, I would look at three things: the way in which even very conservative versions of Judaism and Christianity are a peaceful part of the mix in Britain; secondly look at the examples of thoughful and open Islam which exist - there are some in the cities and the universities - and thirdly have a careful look at the USA way of handling it which appears to have been quite successful.
There is a growing Islamic middle class in the UK (visit any hospital), and the middle class are usually reasonably good at coexistence.
Finally, Islamic history has remarkable examples of high culture, relative tolerance and stellar scholarship far too little known here.
Your final point is because the immigration we have allowed has been en masse rather than selective. If we had offered jobs to the best Islamic engineers, doctors, lawyers and so on, I’m sure the societal & economic frictions would be few. As it is, we’ve taken the equivalent of our WWC from the poor parts of Asian & African cities, thrown them in with the poorest English people and said get on with it. A recipe for disaster
Looking back Merkel's "Let Them In" policy of 2015 seems ever more insane. We already knew by then that importing conservative Islam was a recipe for disorder and violence. Yet she did it
Angela Merkel was the most overrated politician of her generation. She got none of the big calls right.
Germany and the UK are duking it out for "worst run western countries of the last two decades"
I suspect, under Starmer, we take gold, but the Germans - as always - seem determined to fight us to the end
Although the US is finishing like a train and might well nick it.
The USA is saved from the podium by its powering economy, which even Trump cannot fuck up
Hmm, not sure. If he ends freedom and democracy there, how much of a sop is it that the economy just about holds up?
At the same time, we need to remember that 99.9% (which we're not at yet) isn't good enough for a Robotaxi. It needs to be 99.99999%. And those last tenths and hundredths of a percent - those really tough edge cases - are hard.
The problem is that humans are not 99.99999%
People accept that humans make mistakes: they are much less forgiving of machines.
At the same time, we need to remember that 99.9% (which we're not at yet) isn't good enough for a Robotaxi. It needs to be 99.99999%. And those last tenths and hundredths of a percent - those really tough edge cases - are hard.
The problem is that humans are not 99.99999%
People accept that humans make mistakes: they are much less forgiving of machines.
I thought Scott's point was that the remaining problems are caused by human drivers being on the roads, which doesn't seem true. There would still be edge cases even if you banned human drivers.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
They're such lying fucks. People don't believe them, and they're right to disbelieve
As you say they will do it when it suits - white British male, gammony face, they will release the info probably before the crime is actually committed. Others, not so much
I’ve already heard plenty of “futureproofing” from politicians etc today where they have been saying that of course they won’t always be able to announce the ethnicity of a suspect in future for various “operational reasons”.
So if it’s a white man there will not be any operational reasons to keep that quiet - which sort of causes the situation where whenever they don’t announce the race of a suspect then everyone will assume they are not white males and so the worst of society will use that to stir things up.
The core problem is that every time there's a crime we have a bunch of racists desperate for the perp to be not white so they can kick off.
This makes it hard for any general 'policy' to be implemented.
There are also plenty who hope the “perp” is a white far right person so they can kick off or feel virtuous.
Or those who support other football teams hoping it was by fans of a team they hate so they can use it as a stick whilst confirming their prejudices.
But the risk of violence is asymmetric, this is the key thing. It's a practical matter being grappled with - how to minimise the chance of racist riots - not some point of theory or ideology.
OK, so if there is assymetric risk we can treat different groups differently - good to know, could have sworn that was anathama racist profiling last I checked.
Oh for heaven's sake. It isn't some policy to preference non-whites in society. It's simply the police saying promptly the Liverpool culprit is a white Brit so as to discourage another Southport type reaction from racist elements.
I'm starting to think it was a mistake. The far-right narrative is feeding off it anyway. Perhaps better to keep it secret and only reveal at the time the individual was charged, like normal, and embarrass all the numpties on twitter.
But when you've got the risk of Mosques being burned down...
If they're told it's a Muslim they'll riot.
If they're not told anything they will assume it's a Muslim and they'll riot.
If they're told it's not a Muslim they say it's "two tier" policing, which risks causing them to riot.
The privileged have always spoken like that about the lower orders.
"If they're told there's no bread they'll riot.
If they're not told anything they'll assume there's no bread and they'll riot.
If they're told there is bread then they'll ask who ate all the cake, which risks causing them to riot."
Hmm. Reform UK Councillors in West Northants will refuse their diversity training:
A Reform UK council leader has confirmed that his group will not take part in diversity or climate training as part of their new roles as elected officials.
Mark Arnull, a Reform UK councillor, was appointed as the leader of West Northamptonshire Council on Wednesday.
He told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: "As it stands, I will stand with the policy and the councillors on the Reform group will not be attending the training." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwywg9j9y1xo
Unless it is a statutory requirement no story could matter less.
I attended something last week which I would have avoided if possible. If I hadn't gone, I would ultimately have been barred from doing a particular piece of voluntary public service. So I went. I imagine millions of Brown Owls and youth sports helpers are in the same position. I envy the Reform councillors.
I'm not clear whether it is mandatory, or recommended in policy.
What they are doing is showing their inept practical politics, and making sure that they are not willing to engage with their legal responsibilities - all in pursuit of the publicity stunt of a hit on "woke".
They have a legal duty proactively to promote equality across all protected characteristics, and if a position is taken of "Harrumph !! I don't need no knowledge !!", they are headed for problems, and opening up the Council to legal action, and themselves to challenge where they could have avoided it.
BBC picking up on the apparent change in policy from Merseyside police over reporting about suspects. This is the key bit, I think:
"The problem that police forces now face is whether this new approach will lead to confusion in future.
What will a force do for example if the information about the suspect they are holding is unclear?
Even more problematically, what will a force do if they arrest someone in similar circumstances who is a recently arrived migrant or who has a clearly Muslim name?
Last night's rapid move to correct the narrative may not be as straightforward in different circumstances.
Helen King, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There will be times when police can confirm quickly. There are other times when it is unclear. These will always be complex and sensitive decisions.""
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the police will confirm quickly when its white men...
They're such lying fucks. People don't believe them, and they're right to disbelieve
As you say they will do it when it suits - white British male, gammony face, they will release the info probably before the crime is actually committed. Others, not so much
I’ve already heard plenty of “futureproofing” from politicians etc today where they have been saying that of course they won’t always be able to announce the ethnicity of a suspect in future for various “operational reasons”.
So if it’s a white man there will not be any operational reasons to keep that quiet - which sort of causes the situation where whenever they don’t announce the race of a suspect then everyone will assume they are not white males and so the worst of society will use that to stir things up.
The core problem is that every time there's a crime we have a bunch of racists desperate for the perp to be not white so they can kick off.
This makes it hard for any general 'policy' to be implemented.
There are also plenty who hope the “perp” is a white far right person so they can kick off or feel virtuous.
Or those who support other football teams hoping it was by fans of a team they hate so they can use it as a stick whilst confirming their prejudices.
But the risk of violence is asymmetric, this is the key thing. It's a practical matter being grappled with - how to minimise the chance of racist riots - not some point of theory or ideology.
OK, so if there is assymetric risk we can treat different groups differently - good to know, could have sworn that was anathama racist profiling last I checked.
Oh for heaven's sake. It isn't some policy to preference non-whites in society. It's simply the police saying promptly the Liverpool culprit is a white Brit so as to discourage another Southport type reaction from racist elements.
I'm starting to think it was a mistake. The far-right narrative is feeding off it anyway. Perhaps better to keep it secret and only reveal at the time the individual was charged, like normal, and embarrass all the numpties on twitter.
But when you've got the risk of Mosques being burned down...
If they're told it's a Muslim they'll riot.
If they're not told anything they will assume it's a Muslim and they'll riot.
If they're told it's not a Muslim they say it's "two tier" policing, which risks causing them to riot.
The privileged have always spoken like that about the lower orders.
"If they're told there's no bread they'll riot.
If they're not told anything they'll assume there's no bread and they'll riot.
If they're told there is bread then they'll ask who ate all the cake, which risks causing them to riot."
Except most of the people who whip up and profit from white racial grievance are hardly downtrodden peasants.
At the same time, we need to remember that 99.9% (which we're not at yet) isn't good enough for a Robotaxi. It needs to be 99.99999%. And those last tenths and hundredths of a percent - those really tough edge cases - are hard.
The problem is that humans are not 99.99999%
People accept that humans make mistakes: they are much less forgiving of machines.
I thought Scott's point was that the remaining problems are caused by human drivers being on the roads, which doesn't seem true. There would still be edge cases even if you banned human drivers.
Suspect arrested on suspicion of attempted nurder, dangerous driving and driving while unfit due to drugs
It's not yet charged so I think I can still comment in general terms.
I'd say that Causing Serious Injury by Dangerous Driving is an obvious multiple charge (6 months to 5 years in prison), and when he tries to bargain it down to a guilty plea for Serious Injury by Careless (max 2 years) they will reject that.
The drugs charge is one they should be confident about if the test results are suitable.
Attempted murder is a stretch as it needs mens rea.
I'm not sure how the concurrent / consecutive sentencing would be handled.
Nor am I sure of the impact of "but he panicked in his fear", which could potentially be heavy on the other side of the scales.
When the lady drove into the Plymouth Half Marathon in 2018 (linked by @Eabhal ), there seem to have been no charges at all - that is, I can't find any reporting.
Comments
After your post I am more convinced than ever of a 2029 Johnson/ Tory landslide.
There is a growing Islamic middle class in the UK (visit any hospital), and the middle class are usually reasonably good at coexistence.
Finally, Islamic history has remarkable examples of high culture, relative tolerance and stellar scholarship far too little known here.
https://www.tatler.com/article/boris-johnson-carrie-symonds-daylesford-hamper-luxury-food-deliveries-downing-street
America has almost no tradition of poor conservative Islamic migrants coming direct from say, Pakistan, Syria, Afghanistan, Algeria, Somalia, Kurdistan (tho this is beginning to change)
So it may just be that America got "lucky" in the provenance of its relatively small Muslim population
It's a grim situation for Europe, in contrast
Starmer was seen as an ineffective leader of opposition but had the sense to stay silent when the conservatives under Johnson/ Truss imploded - perhaps Badenoch is following the strategy.
Equally 403 is a huge number of parliamentary colleagues for Starmer to keep satisfied. What proportion of those have little prospect of a paid position and look dead certs to lose their seats to Reform on current polling.
When is the sweet spot to jump? 2025 feels a little early, 2029 too late. The ambitious types in 2026 and the rats from the ships in ‘27 or ‘28 depending on what everyone else does?
Edit - they wouldnt be jumping ship because of ideology but as a career move remember
White House stunned as Hegseth inquiry brings up illegal wiretap claims
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/27/hegseth-pentagon-leak-investigation-wiretap
...But the illegal wiretap claim and Caldwell’s denials fueled a breakdown in trust between the Pentagon and the White House, where the Trump advisers tracking the investigation have privately suggested they no longer have any idea about who or what to believe...
A Reform UK council leader has confirmed that his group will not take part in diversity or climate training as part of their new roles as elected officials.
Mark Arnull, a Reform UK councillor, was appointed as the leader of West Northamptonshire Council on Wednesday.
He told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: "As it stands, I will stand with the policy and the councillors on the Reform group will not be attending the training."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwywg9j9y1xo
In the real world there are three possible approaches, none of them exclusive to themselves, given that we are where we are:
1) Mine (as above)
2) Remigration, to which I am absolutely hostile without qualification
3) Potential strife.
To govern is to choose.
What are these "sane subtle" policies you propose?
I'd love to hear them because - much as I like drama - I don't actually want to see Europe fulfilling Betz's prediction of race war
I attended something last week which I would have avoided if possible. If I hadn't gone, I would ultimately have been barred from doing a particular piece of voluntary public service. So I went. I imagine millions of Brown Owls and youth sports helpers are in the same position. I envy the Reform councillors.
I suspect, under Starmer, we take gold, but the Germans - as always - seem determined to fight us to the end
In my experience people who make a living out of these courses hate people who ask things like that.
If its a council by council thing though they can do what they like I guess
And plenty of murder charges are levelled at people who "panic" and stab people in a fight, as we've seen with the Dumbiedykes murder in Edinburgh. It's quite astonishing how the language changes when you swap that kitchen knife for a two-tonne motor vehicle.
But when you've got the risk of Mosques being burned down...
Transport for London (TfL), which is overseen by the Mayor, plans to raise the daily charge for driving in central London from £15 to £18 from January 2026. It will be the first increase since 2020, when the fee climbed from £11.50.
TfL also plans to close the residents’ discount scheme to new entrants unless they drive an EV. Currently, locals can qualify for a 90pc discount, a policy that has been in place since the congestion charge was introduced in 2003 by Ken Livingstone.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/05/27/sadiq-khan-scrap-congestion-charge-discount-local-evs-uk/
White people riot: brown people's fault for being here.
Seems to be the prevailing logic.
WFH means less income from fares, and also means less advertising.
If they're not told anything they will assume it's a Muslim and they'll riot.
If they're told it's not a Muslim they say it's "two tier" policing, which risks causing them to riot.
https://x.com/adamjschwarz/status/1927312341588148491?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
That's not a critique, the problem may be intractable and outright violence is coming, whatever
Great! I'm off for oysters
(technically yes - it could have been Cat Stevens)
By contrast there are zero Tesla robotaxis.
For there to be autonomous Tesla robotaxis in London means you have to believe
(a) that they will be able to offer (in city) autonomous driving without LIDAR at acceptable levels of safety
(b) they will overcome massive regulatory scrutiny (and insurance requirements)
Plus, of course, there's an awful lot of infrastructure you need to build to offer these: whether it is dedicated charging stations (going to be tough to site in London) or warehouses full of people able to take over if a vehicle stops due to unfamiliar circumstances and need to be manually controlled.
I would be staggered if there were Tesla robotaxis on the streets of London before the end of this decade.
---
Edit to add: in the US, especially on the West Coast, I can see Tesla launching robotaxi services in the next couple of years. (Albeit not in 2025.) But London is an entirely different kettle of fish: much, much harder to navigate around - and much denser - than cities built around the car.
I’m not sure if many people here work in the software engineering industry but the term is vapourware.
"If they're told there's no bread they'll riot.
If they're not told anything they'll assume there's no bread and they'll riot.
If they're told there is bread then they'll ask who ate all the cake, which risks causing them to riot."
I have just received an email from a famous London teaching hospital. Its most prominent link is to drdoctor.zendesk.com – a URL not obviously connected with the hospital.
This is what I (and others) mean when we say the powers that be are conditioning us to blindly click on phishing links.
To add insult to injury, that url looks like it has been misconfigured twice, once by the hospital but also by the DrDoctor team, since it exposes and goes to the zendesk domain.
This is why we can't buy anything from the Co-op or pay for anything from M&S, or is it the other way round? Someone clicks on a dodgy link in an email and Bob's the hacker's uncle.
BREAKING: Merseyside Police say the car tailgated an ambulance on to Water Street which was attending a suspected heart attack.
They insist a “robust traffic plan” was in place, including on Water Street which was closed to traffic.
Again, they stress this is not terrorism.
Merseyside Police say the man is suspected of driving under the influence of drugs.
You enter a destination, you hit go, and then you hand off control to FSD.
And 90% of the time, your car will do all the driving for you, including changing lane, stopping at lights, navigating, etc.
The problem is that it's far from foolproof today - you are highly likely to be required to take control (even if only momentarily) on a journey. And it's quite jarring: the system tells you screechingly "take control no". And if you don't take control within a few seconds, it locks you out the system.
It also makes irritating mistakes far too often. I got stopped behind an Amazon delivery vehicle in the right hand (i.e. pedestrian side). There were two lanes. My car decided it was stuck in a traffic jam , and refused to change lanes and go around the van. I had to disengage FSD and manually go around it.
We shouldn't underestimate the awesome technical achievement that is Tesla FSD.
At the same time, we need to remember that 99.9% (which we're not at yet) isn't good enough for a Robotaxi. It needs to be 99.99999%. And those last tenths and hundredths of a percent - those really tough edge cases - are hard.
Commercial robotaxi service powered by Teslas on the streets of London before 1 January 2030? £100?
I don't believe it'll be long before the cost is below $100 a vehicle.
At that point, you're crazy not to have it, because it's ability to see through things like fog is so impressive compared to camera based systems.
Suspect arrested on suspicion of attempted murder, dangerous driving and driving while unfit due to drugs
What they are doing is showing their inept practical politics, and making sure that they are not willing to engage with their legal responsibilities - all in pursuit of the publicity stunt of a hit on "woke".
They have a legal duty proactively to promote equality across all protected characteristics, and if a position is taken of "Harrumph !! I don't need no knowledge !!", they are headed for problems, and opening up the Council to legal action, and themselves to challenge where they could have avoided it.
I'd say that Causing Serious Injury by Dangerous Driving is an obvious multiple charge (6 months to 5 years in prison), and when he tries to bargain it down to a guilty plea for Serious Injury by Careless (max 2 years) they will reject that.
The drugs charge is one they should be confident about if the test results are suitable.
Attempted murder is a stretch as it needs mens rea.
I'm not sure how the concurrent / consecutive sentencing would be handled.
Nor am I sure of the impact of "but he panicked in his fear", which could potentially be heavy on the other side of the scales.
When the lady drove into the Plymouth Half Marathon in 2018 (linked by @Eabhal ), there seem to have been no charges at all - that is, I can't find any reporting.