"We've lied to you about how many people we were bringing to Britain and how much we were spending, then gagged anyone who found out about it."
I feel like this sort of official state disinformation might be more damaging to public trust in politics than social media posts.
I see Kemi's spokesperson (never heard of them) say it's Labour's fault.
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the "staggering figures" were "clear proof that the Labour government has lost control of our welfare system".
"Under Kemi Badenoch, we've set out a clear, common-sense position. This is about fairness, responsibility and protecting support for those who've contributed to this country," he said.
The majority of the foreign nationals are EU who were here before Brexit. As part of Brexit, EU laws were simply rolled over (T. May) with the idea that they would be amended or withdrawn. A certain Mr Johnson did nothing but added to the issue.
The level of denial by the Conservatives is off the scale.
That's a different story. Sam Ashworth-Hayes is talking about secretly bringing in thousands of Afghans.
Is this the scheme set up by the Labour government in March 2024 that is in the news today?
In what parallel universe was Labour in power in March 2024?
A parallel universe. In which Starmer is decent at politics.
In the infinite universes theory, that might just apply to one.
Part of the problem is the Victorian anti-intellectual inheritance. Pride in Britain is easy to attack as pride in imperialism, because we don't have that conceptual, 18th century prospectus that, say, the French and Americans have.
But the answer is quite simple; rediscover the huge cultural achievements of 17th and 18th century Britain, while being honest in facing its darker chapters of slavery and appropriation.
Three points have occurred to me.
I wonder if some of it is because 'British culture' is kind of the wallpaper (in Britain) and therefore not a natural subject of interest. As opposed to, say, expat Brits living in other countries, where it more likely would be (to them).
Or consider somebody hosting a social occasion. You wouldn't expect them as they circulate to be continually bigging up their own house. "Yes yes, all very fascinating, but have you seen the size of my bathroom?" It would be unsettling if they carried on like that.
Also if being British involves a degree of reticence and stiff upper lip - I'm a sceptic on all this stuff but let's go with it for these purposes - then you could argue it's an integral part of British culture to not celebrate British culture.
I think your latter two points are true. I don't think we ought to go overboard on the national (or even municipal, or regional) pride. But I also wish we didn't go so big on the national shame.
Oh wow, the women who drove a van into the fence at Leonardo - a defence company accused of abetting Israel - have been charged with terrorism.
Again, do we really think this is terrorism? I know it fits the legal definition but... it's politically motivated criminal damage. It's not terrorising us into supporting Hamas or something.
Yes. Fuck them.
That's a pretty foolish response, IMO. I have little sympathy with them, but 'terrorism' it isn't.
Confecting hyperbolic penalties for what is essentially stupidity devalues the real offence.
Part of the problem is the Victorian anti-intellectual inheritance. Pride in Britain is easy to attack as pride in imperialism, because we don't have that conceptual, 18th century prospectus that, say, the French and Americans have.
But the answer is quite simple; rediscover the huge cultural achievements of 17th and 18th century Britain, while being honest in facing its darker chapters of slavery and appropriation.
Three points have occurred to me.
I wonder if some of it is because 'British culture' is kind of the wallpaper (in Britain) and therefore not a natural subject of interest. As opposed to, say, expat Brits living in other countries, where it more likely would be (to them).
Or consider somebody hosting a social occasion. You wouldn't expect them as they circulate to be continually bigging up their own house. "Yes yes, all very fascinating, but have you seen the size of my bathroom?" It would be unsettling if they did that.
Also if being British involves a degree of reticence and stiff upper lip - I'm a sceptic on all this stuff but let's go with it for these purposes - then you could argue it's an integral part of British culture to not celebrate British culture.
Isn’t it more just a legacy of confidence. We were “top nation” for a long time and during a period where communications and culture spread through the world more easily through quicker transport, newspaper, culture, the telegraph.
The Victorian age when we were at our zenith was really the first chunk of the modern age so we were THE BRITISH, top dog, biggest Empire, best technology, finest navy the world had ever seen, our language and literature spreading through the world so we didn’t feel weak or worried about who we were.
That legacy stayed in our culture until relatively recently, we don’t salute the flag, we look on quizzically when someone sets fire to the flag in some dusty corner of the Middle East or hits a picture of the Queen/King with their sandal.
We could look around and see our influence, we had been a major part in keeping the world free from tyranny and so could wear patriotism lightly.
It’s like the critique of public schoolboys being overly and effortlessly confident. We don’t brag about how amazing we are, we don’t remind everyone that when we were exclusively running the show and the plebs knew their place the country was the bestest in the world, we just know.
That sureness has been eroded by large scale immigration and mixing of global cultures changing who we are so we can’t use the crutch of who we were. So when other cultures that we don’t really feel part of are celebrated and “ours” feels denigrated it starts to grate and inevitably there will be a reaction.
The French on the other hand are just immensely full of misplaced pride and pâté.
You know Trump grabbed the World Cup trophy so Chelsea had to be given the spare replica well it seems he also stole one of the models as he went up to the presentation
Part of the problem is the Victorian anti-intellectual inheritance. Pride in Britain is easy to attack as pride in imperialism, because we don't have that conceptual, 18th century prospectus that, say, the French and Americans have.
But the answer is quite simple; rediscover the huge cultural achievements of 17th and 18th century Britain, while being honest in facing its darker chapters of slavery and appropriation.
Three points have occurred to me.
I wonder if some of it is because 'British culture' is kind of the wallpaper (in Britain) and therefore not a natural subject of interest. As opposed to, say, expat Brits living in other countries, where it more likely would be (to them).
Or consider somebody hosting a social occasion. You wouldn't expect them as they circulate to be continually bigging up their own house. "Yes yes, all very fascinating, but have you seen the size of my bathroom?" It would be unsettling if they did that.
Also if being British involves a degree of reticence and stiff upper lip - I'm a sceptic on all this stuff but let's go with it for these purposes - then you could argue it's an integral part of British culture to not celebrate British culture.
Isn’t it more just a legacy of confidence. We were “top nation” for a long time and during a period where communications and culture spread through the world more easily through quicker transport, newspaper, culture, the telegraph.
The Victorian age when we were at our zenith was really the first chunk of the modern algae so we were THE BRITISH, top dog, biggest Empire, best technology, finest navy the world had ever seen, our language and literature spreading through the world so we didn’t feel weak or worried about who we were.
That legacy stayed in our culture until relatively recently, we don’t salute the flag, we look on quizzically when someone sets fire to the flag in some dusty corner of the Middle East or hits a picture of the Queen/King with their sandal.
We could look around and see our influence, we had been a major part in keeping the world free from tyranny and so could wear patriotism lightly.
It’s like the critique of public schoolboys being overly and effortlessly confident. We don’t brag about how amazing we are, we don’t remind everyone that when we were exclusively running the show and the plebs knew their place the country was the bestest in the world, we just know.
That sureness has been eroded by large scale immigration and mixing of global cultures changing who we are so we can’t use the crutch of who we were. So when other cultures that we don’t really feel part of are celebrated and “ours” feels denigrated it starts to grate and inevitably there will be a reaction.
The French on the other hand are just immensely full of misplaced pride and pâté.
The Victorian part is key. Both detractors and nostalgists alike can't get over Victorian triumphalism ; Britain was great because it was the greatest.
Until we get over this, and return to the intellectual achievements of the eighteenth century, celebrating Britain is always going to be highly contested, and unnecessarily complex.
"We've lied to you about how many people we were bringing to Britain and how much we were spending, then gagged anyone who found out about it."
I feel like this sort of official state disinformation might be more damaging to public trust in politics than social media posts.
I see Kemi's spokesperson (never heard of them) say it's Labour's fault.
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the "staggering figures" were "clear proof that the Labour government has lost control of our welfare system".
"Under Kemi Badenoch, we've set out a clear, common-sense position. This is about fairness, responsibility and protecting support for those who've contributed to this country," he said.
The majority of the foreign nationals are EU who were here before Brexit. As part of Brexit, EU laws were simply rolled over (T. May) with the idea that they would be amended or withdrawn. A certain Mr Johnson did nothing but added to the issue.
The level of denial by the Conservatives is off the scale.
That's a different story. Sam Ashworth-Hayes is talking about secretly bringing in thousands of Afghans.
Is this the scheme set up by the Labour government in March 2024 that is in the news today?
In what parallel universe was Labour in power in March 2024?
The parallel universe from which Kemi asks PMQs and Rob J makes TwiX videos.
Not quite true, Reform in Kent wants more immigrant care workers. Reform’s leadership haven’t yet been asked if that’s what they want and I suspect the answer would be no.
The squaring of what Reform needs for their councils to succeed and what their voters want is going to be an interesting problem.
In Durham the council have announced they need to find £31m in cuts to cover an expected social care overspend
I thought boatloads of potential care workers arrive in Kent on every tide. What more do they want?
A reminder that the government shutdown the right of care homes to directly recruit from abroad, because next to no-one they sold* a visa to ended up working in a care home.
Nearly all the migrants who ended up working in care homes did so via other visa routes.
As a result of this comedy, we don’t have reliable numbers for shortages of workers. This is because the care home owners created visas for jobs that didn’t exist, in many cases. So the non-existent job went on the tally of vacancies. And since it didn’t exist, was never filled…
*Selling a visa like this is a crime.
There's no such thing as a shortage that can't be filled.
It is unskilled labour. That's not to be disrespectful, I have the greatest respect for those who choose to do it, but the only qualification needed is to pass a DBS Check. You don't even need a GCSE let alone a degree, literally anyone with a clean DBS can do it.
If the vacancy isn't filled, its because either the terms and conditions are shit, the pay is shit, or the way management treat their employees is shit. Or a combination of the above.
All the above are readily fixable problems.
Thing is Bart, Boris had this covered but Sunak and Starmer have dropped the ball over importing absolutely necessary labour. Farage has spooked them, Boris would have just tweaked his nose and kept bringing our friends from abroad in to work the nation to economic growth.
What growth? GDP is rising but GDP per capita really isn’t
GDP has fallen for the last 2 months in a row. That "fastest growing economy in the G7 in Q1" is going to get old very fast. Like next month.
The falls are not large, we are not yet falling into recession, but we are not growing, we are treading water at best.
Oh wow, the women who drove a van into the fence at Leonardo - a defence company accused of abetting Israel - have been charged with terrorism.
Again, do we really think this is terrorism? I know it fits the legal definition but... it's politically motivated criminal damage. It's not terrorising us into supporting Hamas or something.
Yes. Fuck them.
That's a pretty foolish response, IMO. I have little sympathy with them, but 'terrorism' it isn't.
Confecting hyperbolic penalties for what is essentially stupidity devalues the real offence.
Isn’t terrorism the use of violence to achieve political goals? Seems to fit the bill.
Part of the problem is the Victorian anti-intellectual inheritance. Pride in Britain is easy to attack as pride in imperialism, because we don't have that conceptual, 18th century prospectus that, say, the French and Americans have.
But the answer is quite simple; rediscover the huge cultural achievements of 17th and 18th century Britain, while being honest in facing its darker chapters of slavery and appropriation.
Three points have occurred to me.
I wonder if some of it is because 'British culture' is kind of the wallpaper (in Britain) and therefore not a natural subject of interest. As opposed to, say, expat Brits living in other countries, where it more likely would be (to them).
Or consider somebody hosting a social occasion. You wouldn't expect them as they circulate to be continually bigging up their own house. "Yes yes, all very fascinating, but have you seen the size of my bathroom?" It would be unsettling if they carried on like that.
Also if being British involves a degree of reticence and stiff upper lip - I'm a sceptic on all this stuff but let's go with it for these purposes - then you could argue it's an integral part of British culture to not celebrate British culture.
I think your latter two points are true. I don't think we ought to go overboard on the national (or even municipal, or regional) pride. But I also wish we didn't go so big on the national shame.
Our @Leon often criticises London, despite spending very little time in the country, let alone the city. When I went to London on Saturday I got a very different, and more positive, vision from his one.
Part of the problem is the Victorian anti-intellectual inheritance. Pride in Britain is easy to attack as pride in imperialism, because we don't have that conceptual, 18th century prospectus that, say, the French and Americans have.
But the answer is quite simple; rediscover the huge cultural achievements of 17th and 18th century Britain, while being honest in facing its darker chapters of slavery and appropriation.
Three points have occurred to me.
I wonder if some of it is because 'British culture' is kind of the wallpaper (in Britain) and therefore not a natural subject of interest. As opposed to, say, expat Brits living in other countries, where it more likely would be (to them).
Or consider somebody hosting a social occasion. You wouldn't expect them as they circulate to be continually bigging up their own house. "Yes yes, all very fascinating, but have you seen the size of my bathroom?" It would be unsettling if they carried on like that.
Also if being British involves a degree of reticence and stiff upper lip - I'm a sceptic on all this stuff but let's go with it for these purposes - then you could argue it's an integral part of British culture to not celebrate British culture.
I think your latter two points are true. I don't think we ought to go overboard on the national (or even municipal, or regional) pride. But I also wish we didn't go so big on the national shame.
Our @Leon often criticises London, despite spending very little time in the country, let alone the city. When I went to London on Saturday I got a very different, and more positive, vision from his one.
Umm .. he's often singing praise for London from what I see on this site
"We've lied to you about how many people we were bringing to Britain and how much we were spending, then gagged anyone who found out about it."
I feel like this sort of official state disinformation might be more damaging to public trust in politics than social media posts.
I see Kemi's spokesperson (never heard of them) say it's Labour's fault.
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the "staggering figures" were "clear proof that the Labour government has lost control of our welfare system".
"Under Kemi Badenoch, we've set out a clear, common-sense position. This is about fairness, responsibility and protecting support for those who've contributed to this country," he said.
The majority of the foreign nationals are EU who were here before Brexit. As part of Brexit, EU laws were simply rolled over (T. May) with the idea that they would be amended or withdrawn. A certain Mr Johnson did nothing but added to the issue.
The level of denial by the Conservatives is off the scale.
That's a different story. Sam Ashworth-Hayes is talking about secretly bringing in thousands of Afghans.
Is this the scheme set up by the Labour government in March 2024 that is in the news today?
In what parallel universe was Labour in power in March 2024?
A parallel universe. In which Starmer is decent at politics.
In the infinite universes theory, that might just apply to one.
I know in theory in an infinite number of universes everything must be possible but there are surely limits.
Oh wow, the women who drove a van into the fence at Leonardo - a defence company accused of abetting Israel - have been charged with terrorism.
Again, do we really think this is terrorism? I know it fits the legal definition but... it's politically motivated criminal damage. It's not terrorising us into supporting Hamas or something.
Yes. Fuck them.
That's a pretty foolish response, IMO. I have little sympathy with them, but 'terrorism' it isn't.
Confecting hyperbolic penalties for what is essentially stupidity devalues the real offence.
Isn’t terrorism the use of violence to achieve political goals? Seems to fit the bill.
There is no single definition. The UK law (often updated) is now so broad that it captures both the risible and the seriously dangerous under the same rubric.
Wikipedia had this, which is ... not unreasonable. ...Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.[1] The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants.[2] There are various different definitions of terrorism, with no universal agreement about it.[3][4][5] Different definitions of terrorism emphasize its randomness, its aim to instil fear, and its broader impact beyond its immediate victims...
Does the Leonardo incident instil fear in you - or just irritation ?
Oh wow, the women who drove a van into the fence at Leonardo - a defence company accused of abetting Israel - have been charged with terrorism.
Again, do we really think this is terrorism? I know it fits the legal definition but... it's politically motivated criminal damage. It's not terrorising us into supporting Hamas or something.
Yes, its terrorism.
Politically motivated damage against people or property is the frigging definition of terrorism.
Part of the problem is the Victorian anti-intellectual inheritance. Pride in Britain is easy to attack as pride in imperialism, because we don't have that conceptual, 18th century prospectus that, say, the French and Americans have.
But the answer is quite simple; rediscover the huge cultural achievements of 17th and 18th century Britain, while being honest in facing its darker chapters of slavery and appropriation.
Three points have occurred to me.
I wonder if some of it is because 'British culture' is kind of the wallpaper (in Britain) and therefore not a natural subject of interest. As opposed to, say, expat Brits living in other countries, where it more likely would be (to them).
Or consider somebody hosting a social occasion. You wouldn't expect them as they circulate to be continually bigging up their own house. "Yes yes, all very fascinating, but have you seen the size of my bathroom?" It would be unsettling if they carried on like that.
Also if being British involves a degree of reticence and stiff upper lip - I'm a sceptic on all this stuff but let's go with it for these purposes - then you could argue it's an integral part of British culture to not celebrate British culture.
I think your latter two points are true. I don't think we ought to go overboard on the national (or even municipal, or regional) pride. But I also wish we didn't go so big on the national shame.
Our @Leon often criticises London, despite spending very little time in the country, let alone the city. When I went to London on Saturday I got a very different, and more positive, vision from his one.
Indeed. A lot of people you talk to in London, from all backgrounds, feel strongly British and identify so. That is what I've observed over 30 years.
Oh wow, the women who drove a van into the fence at Leonardo - a defence company accused of abetting Israel - have been charged with terrorism.
Again, do we really think this is terrorism? I know it fits the legal definition but... it's politically motivated criminal damage. It's not terrorising us into supporting Hamas or something.
Yes. Fuck them.
That's a pretty foolish response, IMO. I have little sympathy with them, but 'terrorism' it isn't.
Confecting hyperbolic penalties for what is essentially stupidity devalues the real offence.
Isn’t terrorism the use of violence to achieve political goals? Seems to fit the bill.
There is no single definition. The UK law (often updated) is now so broad that it captures both the risible and the seriously dangerous under the same rubric.
Wikipedia had this, which is ... not unreasonable. ...Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.[1] The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants.[2] There are various different definitions of terrorism, with no universal agreement about it.[3][4][5] Different definitions of terrorism emphasize its randomness, its aim to instil fear, and its broader impact beyond its immediate victims...
Does the Leonardo incident instil fear in you - or just irritation ?
That's irrelevant surely? What did the fence say in their statement, was it scared?
Oh wow, the women who drove a van into the fence at Leonardo - a defence company accused of abetting Israel - have been charged with terrorism.
Again, do we really think this is terrorism? I know it fits the legal definition but... it's politically motivated criminal damage. It's not terrorising us into supporting Hamas or something.
Yes. Fuck them.
That's a pretty foolish response, IMO. I have little sympathy with them, but 'terrorism' it isn't.
Confecting hyperbolic penalties for what is essentially stupidity devalues the real offence.
Isn’t terrorism the use of violence to achieve political goals? Seems to fit the bill.
There is no single definition. The UK law (often updated) is now so broad that it captures both the risible and the seriously dangerous under the same rubric.
Wikipedia had this, which is ... not unreasonable. ...Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.[1] The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants.[2] There are various different definitions of terrorism, with no universal agreement about it.[3][4][5] Different definitions of terrorism emphasize its randomness, its aim to instil fear, and its broader impact beyond its immediate victims...
Does the Leonardo incident instil fear in you - or just irritation ?
Oxford dictionaries add the word ‘unlawful’ – it is not terrorism when plod throw their weight about on behalf of the government. Wikipedia rambling on about ‘non-combatants’ seems more relevant to civil wars.
“It can now be revealed that a briefing paper circulated to Cabinet ministers two months later said the [2024] riot hotspots were largely in places where there had been a high number of Afghan arrivals.
In the document, seen by The Telegraph, an official said: “The recent far-Right disorder targeting asylum seekers and Muslim communities was the worst outbreak of racial violence in the UK for decades.
“We know that 15 out of the 20 primary disorder hotspots are in the top 20 per cent of local authorities with the highest numbers of supported asylum seekers and Afghan resettlement arrivals.””
"We've lied to you about how many people we were bringing to Britain and how much we were spending, then gagged anyone who found out about it."
I feel like this sort of official state disinformation might be more damaging to public trust in politics than social media posts.
I see Kemi's spokesperson (never heard of them) say it's Labour's fault.
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the "staggering figures" were "clear proof that the Labour government has lost control of our welfare system".
"Under Kemi Badenoch, we've set out a clear, common-sense position. This is about fairness, responsibility and protecting support for those who've contributed to this country," he said.
The majority of the foreign nationals are EU who were here before Brexit. As part of Brexit, EU laws were simply rolled over (T. May) with the idea that they would be amended or withdrawn. A certain Mr Johnson did nothing but added to the issue.
The level of denial by the Conservatives is off the scale.
It’s getting really tiresome the number of issues the Tories are criticising Labour over that they caused themselves.
Labours comms are inept. They don’t refute.
They do try and refute. The problem is the voting public don’t care.
They blame the Tories for breaking it (see their polling) and they blame Labour for sustaining/not fixing it. And then they go to Reform/Greens/LDs as NOTA.
Labour also have virtually no client media. Most of the traditional press are openly hostile. Guardian doesn't like them as not pure enough left. Neutral tv media like bbc and sky will always prefer to criticise and probably nowadays have to do that more to compete for attention. And unlike the refukkers Labour have no clue how to use social either.
"We've lied to you about how many people we were bringing to Britain and how much we were spending, then gagged anyone who found out about it."
I feel like this sort of official state disinformation might be more damaging to public trust in politics than social media posts.
I see Kemi's spokesperson (never heard of them) say it's Labour's fault.
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the "staggering figures" were "clear proof that the Labour government has lost control of our welfare system".
"Under Kemi Badenoch, we've set out a clear, common-sense position. This is about fairness, responsibility and protecting support for those who've contributed to this country," he said.
The majority of the foreign nationals are EU who were here before Brexit. As part of Brexit, EU laws were simply rolled over (T. May) with the idea that they would be amended or withdrawn. A certain Mr Johnson did nothing but added to the issue.
The level of denial by the Conservatives is off the scale.
That's a different story. Sam Ashworth-Hayes is talking about secretly bringing in thousands of Afghans.
Is this the scheme set up by the Labour government in March 2024 that is in the news today?
Would Sam Ashworth-Hayes have preferred that their names were made public so the Taliban could murder them before they could escape? Sadly I expect that there will still be a large proportion who will suffer that fate, I'm unconvinced by the argument that the threat to their lives has diminished over time.
"We've lied to you about how many people we were bringing to Britain and how much we were spending, then gagged anyone who found out about it."
I feel like this sort of official state disinformation might be more damaging to public trust in politics than social media posts.
I see Kemi's spokesperson (never heard of them) say it's Labour's fault.
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the "staggering figures" were "clear proof that the Labour government has lost control of our welfare system".
"Under Kemi Badenoch, we've set out a clear, common-sense position. This is about fairness, responsibility and protecting support for those who've contributed to this country," he said.
The majority of the foreign nationals are EU who were here before Brexit. As part of Brexit, EU laws were simply rolled over (T. May) with the idea that they would be amended or withdrawn. A certain Mr Johnson did nothing but added to the issue.
The level of denial by the Conservatives is off the scale.
It’s getting really tiresome the number of issues the Tories are criticising Labour over that they caused themselves.
Labours comms are inept. They don’t refute.
They do try and refute. The problem is the voting public don’t care.
They blame the Tories for breaking it (see their polling) and they blame Labour for sustaining/not fixing it. And then they go to Reform/Greens/LDs as NOTA.
Labour also have virtually no client media. Most of the traditional press are openly hostile. Guardian doesn't like them as not pure enough left. Neutral tv media like bbc and sky will always prefer to criticise and probably nowadays have to do that more to compete for attention. And unlike the refukkers Labour have no clue how to use social either.
Labour is getting exactly the treatment it deserves from both the left and right in the media. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch 👍
“It can now be revealed that a briefing paper circulated to Cabinet ministers two months later said the [2024] riot hotspots were largely in places where there had been a high number of Afghan arrivals.
In the document, seen by The Telegraph, an official said: “The recent far-Right disorder targeting asylum seekers and Muslim communities was the worst outbreak of racial violence in the UK for decades.
“We know that 15 out of the 20 primary disorder hotspots are in the top 20 per cent of local authorities with the highest numbers of supported asylum seekers and Afghan resettlement arrivals.””
The most expensive email blunder in history, at a cost of £7bn?
“It can now be revealed that a briefing paper circulated to Cabinet ministers two months later said the [2024] riot hotspots were largely in places where there had been a high number of Afghan arrivals.
In the document, seen by The Telegraph, an official said: “The recent far-Right disorder targeting asylum seekers and Muslim communities was the worst outbreak of racial violence in the UK for decades.
“We know that 15 out of the 20 primary disorder hotspots are in the top 20 per cent of local authorities with the highest numbers of supported asylum seekers and Afghan resettlement arrivals.””
The most expensive email blunder in history, at a cost of £7bn?
I actually don't really have a huge problem with this (all broadcasters edit interviews) - except that Trump extorted tens of millions of dollars from another broadcaster, and threatened to use the power of government to have them shut down, for doing much the same thing.
I had not seen this Fox News extended interview with Trump from 2024 — where they deliberately edited his Epstein answer — where he won’t commit to releasing the full files because of “phony” stuff in it. https://x.com/KFILE/status/1944769200310137127
Oh wow, the women who drove a van into the fence at Leonardo - a defence company accused of abetting Israel - have been charged with terrorism.
Again, do we really think this is terrorism? I know it fits the legal definition but... it's politically motivated criminal damage. It's not terrorising us into supporting Hamas or something.
Yes, its terrorism.
Politically motivated damage against people or property is the frigging definition of terrorism.
“It can now be revealed that a briefing paper circulated to Cabinet ministers two months later said the [2024] riot hotspots were largely in places where there had been a high number of Afghan arrivals.
In the document, seen by The Telegraph, an official said: “The recent far-Right disorder targeting asylum seekers and Muslim communities was the worst outbreak of racial violence in the UK for decades.
“We know that 15 out of the 20 primary disorder hotspots are in the top 20 per cent of local authorities with the highest numbers of supported asylum seekers and Afghan resettlement arrivals.””
The UK only (reluctantly) resettled Afghans who were in danger because they'd worked with / alongside our armed forces then the far-right in the UK targeted those people. Bit of a head-scratcher for the plastic patriots.
I am loath to criticise my former BBC colleagues and I’m aware they weren’t in on the story. But the idea of a TV presenter losing his job being the top story on the website as opposed to Parliament being kept in the dark for two years about the Afghan data leak is risible.
Yeah Reform can't let reality intrude. It destroys their entire political offer.
Its not reality. Pay a living, free market wage to attract employees.
And also change the tax and benefits system so it makes economic sense for people to take minimum wage jobs.
There are lots of British people who could do those jobs; it's just that the economics didn't make sense for them. There's no removal of benefits to factor in for a Kenyan careworker, so they don't have the same calculation.
"We've lied to you about how many people we were bringing to Britain and how much we were spending, then gagged anyone who found out about it."
I feel like this sort of official state disinformation might be more damaging to public trust in politics than social media posts.
I see Kemi's spokesperson (never heard of them) say it's Labour's fault.
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the "staggering figures" were "clear proof that the Labour government has lost control of our welfare system".
"Under Kemi Badenoch, we've set out a clear, common-sense position. This is about fairness, responsibility and protecting support for those who've contributed to this country," he said.
The majority of the foreign nationals are EU who were here before Brexit. As part of Brexit, EU laws were simply rolled over (T. May) with the idea that they would be amended or withdrawn. A certain Mr Johnson did nothing but added to the issue.
The level of denial by the Conservatives is off the scale.
It’s getting really tiresome the number of issues the Tories are criticising Labour over that they caused themselves.
Labours comms are inept. They don’t refute.
They do try and refute. The problem is the voting public don’t care.
They blame the Tories for breaking it (see their polling) and they blame Labour for sustaining/not fixing it. And then they go to Reform/Greens/LDs as NOTA.
Labour also have virtually no client media. Most of the traditional press are openly hostile. Guardian doesn't like them as not pure enough left. Neutral tv media like bbc and sky will always prefer to criticise and probably nowadays have to do that more to compete for attention. And unlike the refukkers Labour have no clue how to use social either.
Labour is getting exactly the treatment it deserves from both the left and right in the media. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch 👍
They are not very good at the government stuff and terrible at the politics side but the press coverage in media like the Telegraph or GBeebies is ridiculously hyperbolic and social media is its usual "good" self.
I am loath to criticise my former BBC colleagues and I’m aware they weren’t in on the story. But the idea of a TV presenter losing his job being the top story on the website as opposed to Parliament being kept in the dark for two years about the Afghan data leak is risible.
The super injunction story is just astonishing. A terrible, terrible cock up putting many people at risk but none of the media are even allowed to make any reference to it, let alone hold the perpetrators to account? Is this really a free country anymore? These super injunctions need to be stopped.
Oh wow, the women who drove a van into the fence at Leonardo - a defence company accused of abetting Israel - have been charged with terrorism.
Again, do we really think this is terrorism? I know it fits the legal definition but... it's politically motivated criminal damage. It's not terrorising us into supporting Hamas or something.
Yes. Fuck them.
That's a pretty foolish response, IMO. I have little sympathy with them, but 'terrorism' it isn't.
Confecting hyperbolic penalties for what is essentially stupidity devalues the real offence.
Isn’t terrorism the use of violence to achieve political goals? Seems to fit the bill.
There is no single definition. The UK law (often updated) is now so broad that it captures both the risible and the seriously dangerous under the same rubric.
Wikipedia had this, which is ... not unreasonable. ...Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.[1] The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants.[2] There are various different definitions of terrorism, with no universal agreement about it.[3][4][5] Different definitions of terrorism emphasize its randomness, its aim to instil fear, and its broader impact beyond its immediate victims...
Does the Leonardo incident instil fear in you - or just irritation ?
Oxford dictionaries add the word ‘unlawful’ – it is not terrorism when plod throw their weight about on behalf of the government. Wikipedia rambling on about ‘non-combatants’ seems more relevant to civil wars.
I think it's simply to distinguish it from behaviour that would be perfectly legal in wartime.
Wikipedia isn't trying to write the law, just give an overview of the subject. Which it has a fair stab at (rather better than our governments, IMO).
I am loath to criticise my former BBC colleagues and I’m aware they weren’t in on the story. But the idea of a TV presenter losing his job being the top story on the website as opposed to Parliament being kept in the dark for two years about the Afghan data leak is risible.
The super injunction story is just astonishing. A terrible, terrible cock up putting many people at risk but none of the media are even allowed to make any reference to it, let alone hold the perpetrators to account? Is this really a free country anymore? These super injunctions need to be stopped.
I am loath to criticise my former BBC colleagues and I’m aware they weren’t in on the story. But the idea of a TV presenter losing his job being the top story on the website as opposed to Parliament being kept in the dark for two years about the Afghan data leak is risible.
The super injunction story is just astonishing. A terrible, terrible cock up putting many people at risk but none of the media are even allowed to make any reference to it, let alone hold the perpetrators to account? Is this really a free country anymore? These super injunctions need to be stopped.
Is it a democracy if a decision with such fiscal and security consequences can be made like that?
Not quite true, Reform in Kent wants more immigrant care workers. Reform’s leadership haven’t yet been asked if that’s what they want and I suspect the answer would be no.
The squaring of what Reform needs for their councils to succeed and what their voters want is going to be an interesting problem.
In Durham the council have announced they need to find £31m in cuts to cover an expected social care overspend
I thought boatloads of potential care workers arrive in Kent on every tide. What more do they want?
A reminder that the government shutdown the right of care homes to directly recruit from abroad, because next to no-one they sold* a visa to ended up working in a care home.
Nearly all the migrants who ended up working in care homes did so via other visa routes.
As a result of this comedy, we don’t have reliable numbers for shortages of workers. This is because the care home owners created visas for jobs that didn’t exist, in many cases. So the non-existent job went on the tally of vacancies. And since it didn’t exist, was never filled…
*Selling a visa like this is a crime.
There's no such thing as a shortage that can't be filled.
It is unskilled labour. That's not to be disrespectful, I have the greatest respect for those who choose to do it, but the only qualification needed is to pass a DBS Check. You don't even need a GCSE let alone a degree, literally anyone with a clean DBS can do it.
If the vacancy isn't filled, its because either the terms and conditions are shit, the pay is shit, or the way management treat their employees is shit. Or a combination of the above.
All the above are readily fixable problems.
All of the above are readily fixable... with money... money that Kent CC doesn't have, presumably. Thus they wish to increase the supply so the price comes down.
Some of us believe unlimited unskilled immigration is a bad idea AND believe in higher taxes to pay the higher costs implied for social care of wages needing to rise because we don't have unlimited labour.
This will have two benefits: We don't fill our country up Lower paid people get paid more
Which will have the knock on benefit that state spending on these two things can fall.
Rachel Reeves needs to whack the basic rate of tax up to 25%. It's the only way to balance the books.
The only way to balance the books - longer-term - is to have economic growth.
The right question is what do we need to do to get economic growth moving, so that rising tax receipts cover expenses?
Not quite true, Reform in Kent wants more immigrant care workers. Reform’s leadership haven’t yet been asked if that’s what they want and I suspect the answer would be no.
The squaring of what Reform needs for their councils to succeed and what their voters want is going to be an interesting problem.
In Durham the council have announced they need to find £31m in cuts to cover an expected social care overspend
I thought boatloads of potential care workers arrive in Kent on every tide. What more do they want?
A reminder that the government shutdown the right of care homes to directly recruit from abroad, because next to no-one they sold* a visa to ended up working in a care home.
Nearly all the migrants who ended up working in care homes did so via other visa routes.
As a result of this comedy, we don’t have reliable numbers for shortages of workers. This is because the care home owners created visas for jobs that didn’t exist, in many cases. So the non-existent job went on the tally of vacancies. And since it didn’t exist, was never filled…
*Selling a visa like this is a crime.
There's no such thing as a shortage that can't be filled.
It is unskilled labour. That's not to be disrespectful, I have the greatest respect for those who choose to do it, but the only qualification needed is to pass a DBS Check. You don't even need a GCSE let alone a degree, literally anyone with a clean DBS can do it.
If the vacancy isn't filled, its because either the terms and conditions are shit, the pay is shit, or the way management treat their employees is shit. Or a combination of the above.
All the above are readily fixable problems.
All of the above are readily fixable... with money... money that Kent CC doesn't have, presumably. Thus they wish to increase the supply so the price comes down.
Some of us believe unlimited unskilled immigration is a bad idea AND believe in higher taxes to pay the higher costs implied for social care of wages needing to rise because we don't have unlimited labour.
This will have two benefits: We don't fill our country up Lower paid people get paid more
Which will have the knock on benefit that state spending on these two things can fall.
Rachel Reeves needs to whack the basic rate of tax up to 25%. It's the only way to balance the books.
The only way to balance the books - longer-term - is to have economic growth.
The right question is what do we need to do to get economic growth moving, so that rising tax receipts cover expenses?
If a business were in this position, the first thing an incoming CEO would do is fire half the workforce. We need to 'right size' the population and aim to have a few years of net emigration.
I am loath to criticise my former BBC colleagues and I’m aware they weren’t in on the story. But the idea of a TV presenter losing his job being the top story on the website as opposed to Parliament being kept in the dark for two years about the Afghan data leak is risible.
The super injunction story is just astonishing. A terrible, terrible cock up putting many people at risk but none of the media are even allowed to make any reference to it, let alone hold the perpetrators to account? Is this really a free country anymore? These super injunctions need to be stopped.
Is it a democracy if a decision with such fiscal and security consequences can be made like that?
I'd have thought you'd be pleased, the Govt got the super injunction so they didn't have to evacuate the Afghans that had been put at risk
“It can now be revealed that a briefing paper circulated to Cabinet ministers two months later said the [2024] riot hotspots were largely in places where there had been a high number of Afghan arrivals.
In the document, seen by The Telegraph, an official said: “The recent far-Right disorder targeting asylum seekers and Muslim communities was the worst outbreak of racial violence in the UK for decades.
“We know that 15 out of the 20 primary disorder hotspots are in the top 20 per cent of local authorities with the highest numbers of supported asylum seekers and Afghan resettlement arrivals.””
No shit, Sherlock.
So they have, are, and will be repeating the methods of Mosley at Cable Street, and every similar group before and since - see for example the stuff that Tommy Robinson did using the EDL. And plan to do the same.
Who knew?
This after an endless rhetoric of delusional wibble about how calling the riots last summer 'far right' was "Two Tier", and a put up job. Which flies in the face of actual journalists doing actual reporting in TV and Radio documentaries who have been saying the same for months that was in the briefing.
Seems a ridiculous over reaction . He apologised and that should have ended the matter .
Totally over the top reaction. Just ridiculous. One incident? You get a written warning maybe and a half hour bollocking from head of HR.
This is getting ridiculous now.
Masterchef is going to go the way of Top of the Pops, all cut up repackaged on BBC4 or youtube if you are lucky.
I have no idea what he is alleged to have said (on the basis that nowadays nobody tells you what grossly offensive term has been used for fear of attracting criticism for repeating it, go figure), but it does appear to be particularly onerous to sack him for something that, I think unless I’m reading wrong, it is accepted he immediately apologised for and doesn’t seem to have been a pattern of behaviour.
I am loath to criticise my former BBC colleagues and I’m aware they weren’t in on the story. But the idea of a TV presenter losing his job being the top story on the website as opposed to Parliament being kept in the dark for two years about the Afghan data leak is risible.
The super injunction story is just astonishing. A terrible, terrible cock up putting many people at risk but none of the media are even allowed to make any reference to it, let alone hold the perpetrators to account? Is this really a free country anymore? These super injunctions need to be stopped.
Is it a democracy if a decision with such fiscal and security consequences can be made like that?
In the 1960s the UK government managed to keep a fairly substantial war with Indonesia quiet, only disclosing that it had happened in 1974. So it it not the first time. But it does raise serious questions about our pretense that our government is accountable.
“It can now be revealed that a briefing paper circulated to Cabinet ministers two months later said the [2024] riot hotspots were largely in places where there had been a high number of Afghan arrivals.
In the document, seen by The Telegraph, an official said: “The recent far-Right disorder targeting asylum seekers and Muslim communities was the worst outbreak of racial violence in the UK for decades.
“We know that 15 out of the 20 primary disorder hotspots are in the top 20 per cent of local authorities with the highest numbers of supported asylum seekers and Afghan resettlement arrivals.””
No shit, Sherlock.
So they have, are, and will be repeating the methods of Mosley at Cable Street, and every similar group before and since - see for example the stuff that Tommy Robinson did using the EDL. And plan to do the same.
Who knew?
This after an endless rhetoric of delusional wibble about how calling the riots last summer 'far right' was "Two Tier", and a put up job. Which flies in the face of actual journalists doing actual reporting in TV and Radio documentaries who have been saying the same for months that was in the briefing.
What the fuck are you on about? It’s the government that lied and schemed and deceived the people
I am loath to criticise my former BBC colleagues and I’m aware they weren’t in on the story. But the idea of a TV presenter losing his job being the top story on the website as opposed to Parliament being kept in the dark for two years about the Afghan data leak is risible.
The super injunction story is just astonishing. A terrible, terrible cock up putting many people at risk but none of the media are even allowed to make any reference to it, let alone hold the perpetrators to account? Is this really a free country anymore? These super injunctions need to be stopped.
Is it a democracy if a decision with such fiscal and security consequences can be made like that?
In the 1960s the UK government managed to keep a fairly substantial war with Indonesia quiet, only disclosing that it had happened in 1974. So it it not the first time. But it does raise serious questions about our pretense that our government is accountable.
When the government has legitimacy and people generally trust that its instincts are to defend our national interests, then secrecy and subterfuge can be tolerated. When it loses that legitimacy then it creates a very dangerous situation.
Part of the problem is the Victorian anti-intellectual inheritance. Pride in Britain is easy to attack as pride in imperialism, because we don't have that conceptual, 18th century prospectus that, say, the French and Americans have.
But the answer is quite simple; rediscover the huge cultural achievements of 17th and 18th century Britain, while being honest in facing its darker chapters of slavery and appropriation.
Three points have occurred to me.
I wonder if some of it is because 'British culture' is kind of the wallpaper (in Britain) and therefore not a natural subject of interest. As opposed to, say, expat Brits living in other countries, where it more likely would be (to them).
Or consider somebody hosting a social occasion. You wouldn't expect them as they circulate to be continually bigging up their own house. "Yes yes, all very fascinating, but have you seen the size of my bathroom?" It would be unsettling if they did that.
Also if being British involves a degree of reticence and stiff upper lip - I'm a sceptic on all this stuff but let's go with it for these purposes - then you could argue it's an integral part of British culture to not celebrate British culture.
Isn’t it more just a legacy of confidence. We were “top nation” for a long time and during a period where communications and culture spread through the world more easily through quicker transport, newspaper, culture, the telegraph.
The Victorian age when we were at our zenith was really the first chunk of the modern algae so we were THE BRITISH, top dog, biggest Empire, best technology, finest navy the world had ever seen, our language and literature spreading through the world so we didn’t feel weak or worried about who we were.
That legacy stayed in our culture until relatively recently, we don’t salute the flag, we look on quizzically when someone sets fire to the flag in some dusty corner of the Middle East or hits a picture of the Queen/King with their sandal.
We could look around and see our influence, we had been a major part in keeping the world free from tyranny and so could wear patriotism lightly.
It’s like the critique of public schoolboys being overly and effortlessly confident. We don’t brag about how amazing we are, we don’t remind everyone that when we were exclusively running the show and the plebs knew their place the country was the bestest in the world, we just know.
That sureness has been eroded by large scale immigration and mixing of global cultures changing who we are so we can’t use the crutch of who we were. So when other cultures that we don’t really feel part of are celebrated and “ours” feels denigrated it starts to grate and inevitably there will be a reaction.
The French on the other hand are just immensely full of misplaced pride and pâté.
The Victorian part is key. Both detractors and nostalgists alike can't get over Victorian triumphalism ; Britain was great because it was the greatest.
Until we get over this, and return to the intellectual achievements of the eighteenth century, celebrating Britain is always going to be highly contested, and unnecessarily complex.
Georgian Britain was generally a more cruel society than Victorian Britain was. The Victorians achieved a great deal of social progress.
IMHO, the Victorians were also intellectually ahead of their contemporaries in the previous century.
Why is Masterchef seemingly the most important item on the BBC News Channel? Ridiculous.
I decided to take the plunge and subscribe to a couple of newspaper sites recently. I appreciate they have inherent biases too, but I tend to find the priority of reporting much more tolerable than the BBC’s weird fetishisation of talking about itself, and its habit of shamelessly cross-promoting its wares.
I always used to look up to it as one of the leading lights, so it is really disappointing to see how far it has fallen of late, I can only guess due to a quiet desperation of trying to compete, knowing it is becoming increasingly obsolete as an organisation.
Not quite true, Reform in Kent wants more immigrant care workers. Reform’s leadership haven’t yet been asked if that’s what they want and I suspect the answer would be no.
The squaring of what Reform needs for their councils to succeed and what their voters want is going to be an interesting problem.
In Durham the council have announced they need to find £31m in cuts to cover an expected social care overspend
I thought boatloads of potential care workers arrive in Kent on every tide. What more do they want?
A reminder that the government shutdown the right of care homes to directly recruit from abroad, because next to no-one they sold* a visa to ended up working in a care home.
Nearly all the migrants who ended up working in care homes did so via other visa routes.
As a result of this comedy, we don’t have reliable numbers for shortages of workers. This is because the care home owners created visas for jobs that didn’t exist, in many cases. So the non-existent job went on the tally of vacancies. And since it didn’t exist, was never filled…
*Selling a visa like this is a crime.
There's no such thing as a shortage that can't be filled.
It is unskilled labour. That's not to be disrespectful, I have the greatest respect for those who choose to do it, but the only qualification needed is to pass a DBS Check. You don't even need a GCSE let alone a degree, literally anyone with a clean DBS can do it.
If the vacancy isn't filled, its because either the terms and conditions are shit, the pay is shit, or the way management treat their employees is shit. Or a combination of the above.
All the above are readily fixable problems.
All of the above are readily fixable... with money... money that Kent CC doesn't have, presumably. Thus they wish to increase the supply so the price comes down.
Some of us believe unlimited unskilled immigration is a bad idea AND believe in higher taxes to pay the higher costs implied for social care of wages needing to rise because we don't have unlimited labour.
This will have two benefits: We don't fill our country up Lower paid people get paid more
Which will have the knock on benefit that state spending on these two things can fall.
Rachel Reeves needs to whack the basic rate of tax up to 25%. It's the only way to balance the books.
The only way to balance the books - longer-term - is to have economic growth.
The right question is what do we need to do to get economic growth moving, so that rising tax receipts cover expenses?
And the right answer is obvious to anyone with a decent knowledge of economics - cut government spending, and deregulate, making a start with planning.
Why is Masterchef seemingly the most important item on the BBC News Channel? Ridiculous.
I decided to take the plunge and subscribe to a couple of newspaper sites recently. I appreciate they have inherent biases too, but I tend to find the priority of reporting much more tolerable than the BBC’s weird fetishisation of talking about itself, and its habit of shamelessly cross-promoting its wares.
I always used to look up to it as one of the leading lights, so it is really disappointing to see how far it has fallen of late, I can only guess due to a quiet desperation of trying to compete, knowing it is becoming increasingly obsolete as an organisation.
It has totally lost its way.
Labour need to impose a new chair and board and executive team.
Seems a ridiculous over reaction . He apologised and that should have ended the matter .
Totally over the top reaction. Just ridiculous. One incident? You get a written warning maybe and a half hour bollocking from head of HR.
This is getting ridiculous now.
Masterchef is going to go the way of Top of the Pops, all cut up repackaged on BBC4 or youtube if you are lucky.
I have no idea what he is alleged to have said (on the basis that nowadays nobody tells you what grossly offensive term has been used for fear of attracting criticism for repeating it, go figure), but it does appear to be particularly onerous to sack him for something that, I think unless I’m reading wrong, it is accepted he immediately apologised for and doesn’t seem to have been a pattern of behaviour.
But surely even so it is evidence of Thoughtcrime?
I am loath to criticise my former BBC colleagues and I’m aware they weren’t in on the story. But the idea of a TV presenter losing his job being the top story on the website as opposed to Parliament being kept in the dark for two years about the Afghan data leak is risible.
The super injunction story is just astonishing. A terrible, terrible cock up putting many people at risk but none of the media are even allowed to make any reference to it, let alone hold the perpetrators to account? Is this really a free country anymore? These super injunctions need to be stopped.
Is it a democracy if a decision with such fiscal and security consequences can be made like that?
In the 1960s the UK government managed to keep a fairly substantial war with Indonesia quiet, only disclosing that it had happened in 1974. So it it not the first time. But it does raise serious questions about our pretense that our government is accountable.
Whilst this is far from ideal, I would love someone to name a democracy that doesn’t have deep government secrets. We accept that some info cannot be released for 25/50/100 years because of damage it could do to the country’s interests, is this actually much different?
If this had cost a couple of million quid would people be more “meh”, is it the money, is it that we had to rescue people who helped our military when we went in and occupied, is it that some idiot lost his laptop or that whoever found it decided to have a snoop around and alert people?
I would be staggered if there aren’t plenty of terrible atrocities or mistakes that the likes of France, Belgium, The US, Italy etc have covered up or massively suppressed.
I am loath to criticise my former BBC colleagues and I’m aware they weren’t in on the story. But the idea of a TV presenter losing his job being the top story on the website as opposed to Parliament being kept in the dark for two years about the Afghan data leak is risible.
The super injunction story is just astonishing. A terrible, terrible cock up putting many people at risk but none of the media are even allowed to make any reference to it, let alone hold the perpetrators to account? Is this really a free country anymore? These super injunctions need to be stopped.
Is it a democracy if a decision with such fiscal and security consequences can be made like that?
In the 1960s the UK government managed to keep a fairly substantial war with Indonesia quiet, only disclosing that it had happened in 1974. So it it not the first time. But it does raise serious questions about our pretense that our government is accountable.
When the government has legitimacy and people generally trust that its instincts are to defend our national interests, then secrecy and subterfuge can be tolerated. When it loses that legitimacy then it creates a very dangerous situation.
A Government needs to act in the interests of its people, ensuring security of the populations person, property and borders, providing food/water and energy security and ensuring proper housing availability and transportation networks, and then considering what other public services are to be provided and funded. We are so fuckin far from any of it.
Part of the problem is the Victorian anti-intellectual inheritance. Pride in Britain is easy to attack as pride in imperialism, because we don't have that conceptual, 18th century prospectus that, say, the French and Americans have.
But the answer is quite simple; rediscover the huge cultural achievements of 17th and 18th century Britain, while being honest in facing its darker chapters of slavery and appropriation.
Three points have occurred to me.
I wonder if some of it is because 'British culture' is kind of the wallpaper (in Britain) and therefore not a natural subject of interest. As opposed to, say, expat Brits living in other countries, where it more likely would be (to them).
Or consider somebody hosting a social occasion. You wouldn't expect them as they circulate to be continually bigging up their own house. "Yes yes, all very fascinating, but have you seen the size of my bathroom?" It would be unsettling if they did that.
Also if being British involves a degree of reticence and stiff upper lip - I'm a sceptic on all this stuff but let's go with it for these purposes - then you could argue it's an integral part of British culture to not celebrate British culture.
Isn’t it more just a legacy of confidence. We were “top nation” for a long time and during a period where communications and culture spread through the world more easily through quicker transport, newspaper, culture, the telegraph.
The Victorian age when we were at our zenith was really the first chunk of the modern age so we were THE BRITISH, top dog, biggest Empire, best technology, finest navy the world had ever seen, our language and literature spreading through the world so we didn’t feel weak or worried about who we were.
That legacy stayed in our culture until relatively recently, we don’t salute the flag, we look on quizzically when someone sets fire to the flag in some dusty corner of the Middle East or hits a picture of the Queen/King with their sandal.
We could look around and see our influence, we had been a major part in keeping the world free from tyranny and so could wear patriotism lightly.
It’s like the critique of public schoolboys being overly and effortlessly confident. We don’t brag about how amazing we are, we don’t remind everyone that when we were exclusively running the show and the plebs knew their place the country was the bestest in the world, we just know.
That sureness has been eroded by large scale immigration and mixing of global cultures changing who we are so we can’t use the crutch of who we were. So when other cultures that we don’t really feel part of are celebrated and “ours” feels denigrated it starts to grate and inevitably there will be a reaction.
The French on the other hand are just immensely full of misplaced pride and pâté.
I do think there's a correlation between insecurity (the feeling of) and grievance about loss of national identity/culture.
But I'm not the best person to go down the hole on this one because I don't really believe in national characteristics, eg the idea of a whole people being 'proud' or 'warm' or 'dynamic' etc or their negative equivalents.
I think almost all of that stuff is a fiction. It's mainly just a way of talking that some people like to do. Oil in the wheels of chit chat. It's usually harmless, fun even, like your last para, but it can be a cover or an enabler for things that aren't so harmless.
“It can now be revealed that a briefing paper circulated to Cabinet ministers two months later said the [2024] riot hotspots were largely in places where there had been a high number of Afghan arrivals.
In the document, seen by The Telegraph, an official said: “The recent far-Right disorder targeting asylum seekers and Muslim communities was the worst outbreak of racial violence in the UK for decades.
“We know that 15 out of the 20 primary disorder hotspots are in the top 20 per cent of local authorities with the highest numbers of supported asylum seekers and Afghan resettlement arrivals.””
No shit, Sherlock.
So they have, are, and will be repeating the methods of Mosley at Cable Street, and every similar group before and since - see for example the stuff that Tommy Robinson did using the EDL. And plan to do the same.
Who knew?
This after an endless rhetoric of delusional wibble about how calling the riots last summer 'far right' was "Two Tier", and a put up job. Which flies in the face of actual journalists doing actual reporting in TV and Radio documentaries who have been saying the same for months that was in the briefing.
What the fuck are you on about? It’s the government that lied and schemed and deceived the people
I'm not actually sure what you are commenting on there, Leon (so I can't reply):
a - The riots last summer, and subsequent police investigations / legal actions etc, and commentary we have seen since.
b - This and the last Government keeping quiet about the work being done to bring Afghans such as translators who had served the British Forces in Afghanistan over here as immigrants, as is their entitlement, in order to minimise risk to them.
“It can now be revealed that a briefing paper circulated to Cabinet ministers two months later said the [2024] riot hotspots were largely in places where there had been a high number of Afghan arrivals.
In the document, seen by The Telegraph, an official said: “The recent far-Right disorder targeting asylum seekers and Muslim communities was the worst outbreak of racial violence in the UK for decades.
“We know that 15 out of the 20 primary disorder hotspots are in the top 20 per cent of local authorities with the highest numbers of supported asylum seekers and Afghan resettlement arrivals.””
No shit, Sherlock.
So they have, are, and will be repeating the methods of Mosley at Cable Street, and every similar group before and since - see for example the stuff that Tommy Robinson did using the EDL. And plan to do the same.
Who knew?
This after an endless rhetoric of delusional wibble about how calling the riots last summer 'far right' was "Two Tier", and a put up job. Which flies in the face of actual journalists doing actual reporting in TV and Radio documentaries who have been saying the same for months that was in the briefing.
What the fuck are you on about? It’s the government that lied and schemed and deceived the people
We need to be very clear here that it is two separate administrations who were involved: Tory then Labour.
Acyn @Acyn · 7m Reporter: Did Bondi tell you your name appeared in the Epstein files?
Trump: No.. I would say these files were made up by Comey and Obama, made up by the Biden…
That was Trump last night / this morning.
As I mentioned he has pivoted from an obsession with getting them released, to I think a claim that they don't exist (a couple of days ago?), to an assertion that it was all made up by his opponents.
Nothing whatsoever to do with Ghislaine Maxwell's Appeal reaching the Supreme Court, and the possibility of material actually being released by a route he can't control as she may offer cooperation in return for release or a lighter sentence.
Much of the chorus (eg Charlie Kirk) who have been demanding how it will all be clear once the files are released, have suddenly done a 180.
“It can now be revealed that a briefing paper circulated to Cabinet ministers two months later said the [2024] riot hotspots were largely in places where there had been a high number of Afghan arrivals.
In the document, seen by The Telegraph, an official said: “The recent far-Right disorder targeting asylum seekers and Muslim communities was the worst outbreak of racial violence in the UK for decades.
“We know that 15 out of the 20 primary disorder hotspots are in the top 20 per cent of local authorities with the highest numbers of supported asylum seekers and Afghan resettlement arrivals.””
No shit, Sherlock.
So they have, are, and will be repeating the methods of Mosley at Cable Street, and every similar group before and since - see for example the stuff that Tommy Robinson did using the EDL. And plan to do the same.
Who knew?
This after an endless rhetoric of delusional wibble about how calling the riots last summer 'far right' was "Two Tier", and a put up job. Which flies in the face of actual journalists doing actual reporting in TV and Radio documentaries who have been saying the same for months that was in the briefing.
What the fuck are you on about? It’s the government that lied and schemed and deceived the people
I'm not actually sure what you are commenting on there, Leon (so I can't reply):
a - The riots last summer, and subsequent police investigations / legal actions etc, and commentary we have seen since.
b - This and the last Government keeping quiet about the work being done to bring Afghans such as translators who had served the British Forces in Afghanistan over here as immigrants, as is their entitlement, in order to minimise risk to them.
The government made a catastrophic error that has cost us billions. It decided the best way to solve this was import 100,000 people
It then decided the best thing was to do all this in secret and lie to parliament and the voters and gag the press for two years. £7bn
Yet you can’t see a problem. People like you ARE part of the problem
We need a Reform government ASAP and let’s hope it works because after that the alternatives get worse
Part of the problem is the Victorian anti-intellectual inheritance. Pride in Britain is easy to attack as pride in imperialism, because we don't have that conceptual, 18th century prospectus that, say, the French and Americans have.
But the answer is quite simple; rediscover the huge cultural achievements of 17th and 18th century Britain, while being honest in facing its darker chapters of slavery and appropriation.
Three points have occurred to me.
I wonder if some of it is because 'British culture' is kind of the wallpaper (in Britain) and therefore not a natural subject of interest. As opposed to, say, expat Brits living in other countries, where it more likely would be (to them).
Or consider somebody hosting a social occasion. You wouldn't expect them as they circulate to be continually bigging up their own house. "Yes yes, all very fascinating, but have you seen the size of my bathroom?" It would be unsettling if they did that.
Also if being British involves a degree of reticence and stiff upper lip - I'm a sceptic on all this stuff but let's go with it for these purposes - then you could argue it's an integral part of British culture to not celebrate British culture.
Isn’t it more just a legacy of confidence. We were “top nation” for a long time and during a period where communications and culture spread through the world more easily through quicker transport, newspaper, culture, the telegraph.
The Victorian age when we were at our zenith was really the first chunk of the modern algae so we were THE BRITISH, top dog, biggest Empire, best technology, finest navy the world had ever seen, our language and literature spreading through the world so we didn’t feel weak or worried about who we were.
That legacy stayed in our culture until relatively recently, we don’t salute the flag, we look on quizzically when someone sets fire to the flag in some dusty corner of the Middle East or hits a picture of the Queen/King with their sandal.
We could look around and see our influence, we had been a major part in keeping the world free from tyranny and so could wear patriotism lightly.
It’s like the critique of public schoolboys being overly and effortlessly confident. We don’t brag about how amazing we are, we don’t remind everyone that when we were exclusively running the show and the plebs knew their place the country was the bestest in the world, we just know.
That sureness has been eroded by large scale immigration and mixing of global cultures changing who we are so we can’t use the crutch of who we were. So when other cultures that we don’t really feel part of are celebrated and “ours” feels denigrated it starts to grate and inevitably there will be a reaction.
The French on the other hand are just immensely full of misplaced pride and pâté.
The Victorian part is key. Both detractors and nostalgists alike can't get over Victorian triumphalism ; Britain was great because it was the greatest.
Until we get over this, and return to the intellectual achievements of the eighteenth century, celebrating Britain is always going to be highly contested, and unnecessarily complex.
Georgian Britain was generally a more cruel society than Victorian Britain was. The Victorians achieved a great deal of social progress.
IMHO, the Victorians were also intellectually ahead of their contemporaries in the previous century.
Seems that 10% of the UK's working age population are on UC with *no requirement* to find work. Then there is a further 10%+ that has some conditionality. Note that the numbers have been climbing due to people being switched from legacy benefits to UC so the numbers will grow again. And yet we have one of the highest levels of engagement in Europe.
Seems Northern Europe has more of a work ethic than Southern Europe.
Oh wow, the women who drove a van into the fence at Leonardo - a defence company accused of abetting Israel - have been charged with terrorism.
Again, do we really think this is terrorism? I know it fits the legal definition but... it's politically motivated criminal damage. It's not terrorising us into supporting Hamas or something.
Yes. Fuck them.
That's a pretty foolish response, IMO. I have little sympathy with them, but 'terrorism' it isn't.
Confecting hyperbolic penalties for what is essentially stupidity devalues the real offence.
Isn’t terrorism the use of violence to achieve political goals? Seems to fit the bill.
I think terrorism has a lot more to it.
Just enforce the law. Stop bending it to 'make a point', whether it's a good point or a bad one.
“It can now be revealed that a briefing paper circulated to Cabinet ministers two months later said the [2024] riot hotspots were largely in places where there had been a high number of Afghan arrivals.
In the document, seen by The Telegraph, an official said: “The recent far-Right disorder targeting asylum seekers and Muslim communities was the worst outbreak of racial violence in the UK for decades.
“We know that 15 out of the 20 primary disorder hotspots are in the top 20 per cent of local authorities with the highest numbers of supported asylum seekers and Afghan resettlement arrivals.””
No shit, Sherlock.
So they have, are, and will be repeating the methods of Mosley at Cable Street, and every similar group before and since - see for example the stuff that Tommy Robinson did using the EDL. And plan to do the same.
Who knew?
This after an endless rhetoric of delusional wibble about how calling the riots last summer 'far right' was "Two Tier", and a put up job. Which flies in the face of actual journalists doing actual reporting in TV and Radio documentaries who have been saying the same for months that was in the briefing.
What the fuck are you on about? It’s the government that lied and schemed and deceived the people
I'm not actually sure what you are commenting on there, Leon (so I can't reply):
a - The riots last summer, and subsequent police investigations / legal actions etc, and commentary we have seen since.
b - This and the last Government keeping quiet about the work being done to bring Afghans such as translators who had served the British Forces in Afghanistan over here as immigrants, as is their entitlement, in order to minimise risk to them.
Are local populations in Britain entitled to any consideration in your view? How do you reconcile the conflict of interests?
Trump's decision to provide Patriot missiles and other air-defense weaponry to Ukraine is the right decision. But no one should see this as a decisive, irreversible course change. It would be dangerous for Ukraine and its supporters to treat it that way. As Trump said, he may be "disappointed" with Putin, but he is far from being "done with him."
Seems that 10% of the UK's working age population are on UC with *no requirement* to find work. Then there is a further 10%+ that has some conditionality. Note that the numbers have been climbing due to people being switched from legacy benefits to UC so the numbers will grow again. And yet we have one of the highest levels of engagement in Europe.
Seems Northern Europe has more of a work ethic than Southern Europe.
Part of the problem is the Victorian anti-intellectual inheritance. Pride in Britain is easy to attack as pride in imperialism, because we don't have that conceptual, 18th century prospectus that, say, the French and Americans have.
But the answer is quite simple; rediscover the huge cultural achievements of 17th and 18th century Britain, while being honest in facing its darker chapters of slavery and appropriation.
Three points have occurred to me.
I wonder if some of it is because 'British culture' is kind of the wallpaper (in Britain) and therefore not a natural subject of interest. As opposed to, say, expat Brits living in other countries, where it more likely would be (to them).
Or consider somebody hosting a social occasion. You wouldn't expect them as they circulate to be continually bigging up their own house. "Yes yes, all very fascinating, but have you seen the size of my bathroom?" It would be unsettling if they did that.
Also if being British involves a degree of reticence and stiff upper lip - I'm a sceptic on all this stuff but let's go with it for these purposes - then you could argue it's an integral part of British culture to not celebrate British culture.
Isn’t it more just a legacy of confidence. We were “top nation” for a long time and during a period where communications and culture spread through the world more easily through quicker transport, newspaper, culture, the telegraph.
The Victorian age when we were at our zenith was really the first chunk of the modern age so we were THE BRITISH, top dog, biggest Empire, best technology, finest navy the world had ever seen, our language and literature spreading through the world so we didn’t feel weak or worried about who we were.
That legacy stayed in our culture until relatively recently, we don’t salute the flag, we look on quizzically when someone sets fire to the flag in some dusty corner of the Middle East or hits a picture of the Queen/King with their sandal.
We could look around and see our influence, we had been a major part in keeping the world free from tyranny and so could wear patriotism lightly.
It’s like the critique of public schoolboys being overly and effortlessly confident. We don’t brag about how amazing we are, we don’t remind everyone that when we were exclusively running the show and the plebs knew their place the country was the bestest in the world, we just know.
That sureness has been eroded by large scale immigration and mixing of global cultures changing who we are so we can’t use the crutch of who we were. So when other cultures that we don’t really feel part of are celebrated and “ours” feels denigrated it starts to grate and inevitably there will be a reaction.
The French on the other hand are just immensely full of misplaced pride and pâté.
I do think there's a correlation between insecurity (the feeling of) and grievance about loss of national identity/culture.
But I'm not the best person to go down the hole on this one because I don't really believe in national characteristics, eg the idea of a whole people being 'proud' or 'warm' or 'dynamic' etc or their negative equivalents.
I think almost all of that stuff is a fiction. It's mainly just a way of talking that some people like to do. Oil in the wheels of chit chat. It's usually harmless, fun even, like your last para, but it can be a cover or an enabler for things that aren't so harmless.
Whatever, I don't partake. It's just not me.
I agree to the extent that I don't think there are necessarily nationally, uniformly spread characteristics, in the way people imagine.
But there are achievements located in particular cultures and places, which we might be nearer or further from in one country.
The problem that post-Victorian Britain has had is that military might is ephemeral, not a value unless tied to a concept of historical inevitability, and the triumph of the right
I would say that Britain has plenty to celebrate, but the inheritance of anti-intellectualism isn't just to make it obscure and largely forgotten as to the contenf, but to also to intimidate and mock people away from the whole process of actually finding out.
It's an academy, apparently, so hardly 'the state', on any level. If it is as presented, then it's a celebration of academies' freedom to be complete Collymores.
One of those stories where I can't help feeling there's more to it, which may one day come out. Although I note the school has apparently apologised, from the story.
Schools have all kinds of interesting non-uniform day rules. My kids' school bans (pro team) football kits - wearing your local youth team kit is fine, as are kits from other sports. But they do make that clear.
, it is at least good to see that the school have thoroughly apologised, having humiliated one of their students by yanking her out of class and making her sit in reception, isolated.
Whether they have gone far enough to make the apology publicly, in front of the school assembly and everyone before whom they humiliated her, and to explain how they have corrected whatever the issue was with their values, principles and practices, remains to be seen.
If they want the value of their declared inclusive culture, they need to do that and demonstrate that they have learnt from it, otherwise it is an easy gift for the "patriotic" lobby.
As reported, it's absolutely outrageous and defies belief. That second point makes me think there must be more to it.* Otherwise we really are in a world gone mad.
*The school might, for example, after some previous trouble between two groups, banned overt national symbols such as flags. As I noted before, my kids' school bans pro football kits due, I think, to some incidents between people sporting kits of rival teams. They make that very clear each non-uniform day. That said, I hope they'd tackle any violation with more tact and compassion than sending a kid to sit in reception.
Wishy washy liberal twats, their idea of inclusive is warped. Like all public services they are staffed by useless halfwits. If she had had a palestine flag frock she would have been lauded.
Come on, Malc. Sending a young girl into isolation for wearing a flag is not wishy washy! Or are you thinking, if they weren't so soft, they'd have reached for the cane?
OT - The factions won't take many votes from Farage. People are voting for Farage and not the label in my opinion. However, this shows a Reform UK govt to survive a year would need a big majority. I suspect Farage's potential to hold a party together would be closer to a Truss than a Boris and the latter was pretty awful at it.
“It can now be revealed that a briefing paper circulated to Cabinet ministers two months later said the [2024] riot hotspots were largely in places where there had been a high number of Afghan arrivals.
In the document, seen by The Telegraph, an official said: “The recent far-Right disorder targeting asylum seekers and Muslim communities was the worst outbreak of racial violence in the UK for decades.
“We know that 15 out of the 20 primary disorder hotspots are in the top 20 per cent of local authorities with the highest numbers of supported asylum seekers and Afghan resettlement arrivals.””
No shit, Sherlock.
So they have, are, and will be repeating the methods of Mosley at Cable Street, and every similar group before and since - see for example the stuff that Tommy Robinson did using the EDL. And plan to do the same.
Who knew?
This after an endless rhetoric of delusional wibble about how calling the riots last summer 'far right' was "Two Tier", and a put up job. Which flies in the face of actual journalists doing actual reporting in TV and Radio documentaries who have been saying the same for months that was in the briefing.
What the fuck are you on about? It’s the government that lied and schemed and deceived the people
I'm not actually sure what you are commenting on there, Leon (so I can't reply):
a - The riots last summer, and subsequent police investigations / legal actions etc, and commentary we have seen since.
b - This and the last Government keeping quiet about the work being done to bring Afghans such as translators who had served the British Forces in Afghanistan over here as immigrants, as is their entitlement, in order to minimise risk to them.
Are local populations in Britain entitled to any consideration in your view? How do you reconcile the conflict of interests?
I think the local Jewish population of Cable Street had a right to quiet enjoyment of their area without Mosley marching his fascist goons in with the aim of provoking and performing violence.
And the same applies to immigrant and British, and immigrant British, communities, before and since, including those targeted by the far right fomented riots last summer.
Seems a ridiculous over reaction . He apologised and that should have ended the matter .
Totally over the top reaction. Just ridiculous. One incident? You get a written warning maybe and a half hour bollocking from head of HR.
This is getting ridiculous now.
Masterchef is going to go the way of Top of the Pops, all cut up repackaged on BBC4 or youtube if you are lucky.
I have no idea what he is alleged to have said (on the basis that nowadays nobody tells you what grossly offensive term has been used for fear of attracting criticism for repeating it, go figure), but it does appear to be particularly onerous to sack him for something that, I think unless I’m reading wrong, it is accepted he immediately apologised for and doesn’t seem to have been a pattern of behaviour.
It's maybe not the actual main reason they have canned him.
Seems that 10% of the UK's working age population are on UC with *no requirement* to find work. Then there is a further 10%+ that has some conditionality. Note that the numbers have been climbing due to people being switched from legacy benefits to UC so the numbers will grow again. And yet we have one of the highest levels of engagement in Europe.
Seems Northern Europe has more of a work ethic than Southern Europe.
What explains Osbourne's so-called Jobs Miracle, where the employment rate rose to multidecade highs? It wasn't replicated in other similar countries. Can we do it again?
“It can now be revealed that a briefing paper circulated to Cabinet ministers two months later said the [2024] riot hotspots were largely in places where there had been a high number of Afghan arrivals.
In the document, seen by The Telegraph, an official said: “The recent far-Right disorder targeting asylum seekers and Muslim communities was the worst outbreak of racial violence in the UK for decades.
“We know that 15 out of the 20 primary disorder hotspots are in the top 20 per cent of local authorities with the highest numbers of supported asylum seekers and Afghan resettlement arrivals.””
No shit, Sherlock.
So they have, are, and will be repeating the methods of Mosley at Cable Street, and every similar group before and since - see for example the stuff that Tommy Robinson did using the EDL. And plan to do the same.
Who knew?
This after an endless rhetoric of delusional wibble about how calling the riots last summer 'far right' was "Two Tier", and a put up job. Which flies in the face of actual journalists doing actual reporting in TV and Radio documentaries who have been saying the same for months that was in the briefing.
What the fuck are you on about? It’s the government that lied and schemed and deceived the people
I'm not actually sure what you are commenting on there, Leon (so I can't reply):
a - The riots last summer, and subsequent police investigations / legal actions etc, and commentary we have seen since.
b - This and the last Government keeping quiet about the work being done to bring Afghans such as translators who had served the British Forces in Afghanistan over here as immigrants, as is their entitlement, in order to minimise risk to them.
Are local populations in Britain entitled to any consideration in your view? How do you reconcile the conflict of interests?
I think the local Jewish population of Cable Street had a right to quiet enjoyment of their area without Mosley marching his fascist goons in with the aim of provoking and performing violence.
And the same applies to immigrant and British, and immigrant British, communities, before and since, including those targeted by the far right fomented riots last summer.
Is the local community entitled to have its interests taken into consideration before a decision is made to house thousands of people from Afghanistan there? Do you recognise that there is a conflict of interests?
“It can now be revealed that a briefing paper circulated to Cabinet ministers two months later said the [2024] riot hotspots were largely in places where there had been a high number of Afghan arrivals.
In the document, seen by The Telegraph, an official said: “The recent far-Right disorder targeting asylum seekers and Muslim communities was the worst outbreak of racial violence in the UK for decades.
“We know that 15 out of the 20 primary disorder hotspots are in the top 20 per cent of local authorities with the highest numbers of supported asylum seekers and Afghan resettlement arrivals.””
No shit, Sherlock.
So they have, are, and will be repeating the methods of Mosley at Cable Street, and every similar group before and since - see for example the stuff that Tommy Robinson did using the EDL. And plan to do the same.
Who knew?
This after an endless rhetoric of delusional wibble about how calling the riots last summer 'far right' was "Two Tier", and a put up job. Which flies in the face of actual journalists doing actual reporting in TV and Radio documentaries who have been saying the same for months that was in the briefing.
What the fuck are you on about? It’s the government that lied and schemed and deceived the people
I'm not actually sure what you are commenting on there, Leon (so I can't reply):
a - The riots last summer, and subsequent police investigations / legal actions etc, and commentary we have seen since.
b - This and the last Government keeping quiet about the work being done to bring Afghans such as translators who had served the British Forces in Afghanistan over here as immigrants, as is their entitlement, in order to minimise risk to them.
The government made a catastrophic error that has cost us billions. It decided the best way to solve this was import 100,000 people
It then decided the best thing was to do all this in secret and lie to parliament and the voters and gag the press for two years. £7bn
Yet you can’t see a problem. People like you ARE part of the problem
We need a Reform government ASAP and let’s hope it works because after that the alternatives get worse
You really do need to go and read some background before you come out with this stuff.
It would be better for your blood pressure. It probably strengthens the quadriceps and the calf muscles, though.
You don't have a clue what a Reform Govt will do, because they don't have a clue themselves. They will turn around in the breeze like a wind sock. It's only a few years ago that the party was promising to address Net Zero. Now because it's fashionable on the stupid end of the right, they've turned their coat.
(Have a good evening all. This has the feel of a quagmire, and I'm not spending time on it.)
“It can now be revealed that a briefing paper circulated to Cabinet ministers two months later said the [2024] riot hotspots were largely in places where there had been a high number of Afghan arrivals.
In the document, seen by The Telegraph, an official said: “The recent far-Right disorder targeting asylum seekers and Muslim communities was the worst outbreak of racial violence in the UK for decades.
“We know that 15 out of the 20 primary disorder hotspots are in the top 20 per cent of local authorities with the highest numbers of supported asylum seekers and Afghan resettlement arrivals.””
No shit, Sherlock.
So they have, are, and will be repeating the methods of Mosley at Cable Street, and every similar group before and since - see for example the stuff that Tommy Robinson did using the EDL. And plan to do the same.
Who knew?
This after an endless rhetoric of delusional wibble about how calling the riots last summer 'far right' was "Two Tier", and a put up job. Which flies in the face of actual journalists doing actual reporting in TV and Radio documentaries who have been saying the same for months that was in the briefing.
What the fuck are you on about? It’s the government that lied and schemed and deceived the people
I'm not actually sure what you are commenting on there, Leon (so I can't reply):
a - The riots last summer, and subsequent police investigations / legal actions etc, and commentary we have seen since.
b - This and the last Government keeping quiet about the work being done to bring Afghans such as translators who had served the British Forces in Afghanistan over here as immigrants, as is their entitlement, in order to minimise risk to them.
Are local populations in Britain entitled to any consideration in your view? How do you reconcile the conflict of interests?
I think the local Jewish population of Cable Street had a right to quiet enjoyment of their area without Mosley marching his fascist goons in with the aim of provoking and performing violence.
And the same applies to immigrant and British, and immigrant British, communities, before and since, including those targeted by the far right fomented riots last summer.
Is the local community entitled to have its interests taken into consideration before a decision is made to house thousands of people from Afghanistan there? Do you recognise that there is a conflict of interests?
I is confused. I thought these Afghans are on our side?
Part of the problem is the Victorian anti-intellectual inheritance. Pride in Britain is easy to attack as pride in imperialism, because we don't have that conceptual, 18th century prospectus that, say, the French and Americans have.
But the answer is quite simple; rediscover the huge cultural achievements of 17th and 18th century Britain, while being honest in facing its darker chapters of slavery and appropriation.
Three points have occurred to me.
I wonder if some of it is because 'British culture' is kind of the wallpaper (in Britain) and therefore not a natural subject of interest. As opposed to, say, expat Brits living in other countries, where it more likely would be (to them).
Or consider somebody hosting a social occasion. You wouldn't expect them as they circulate to be continually bigging up their own house. "Yes yes, all very fascinating, but have you seen the size of my bathroom?" It would be unsettling if they did that.
Also if being British involves a degree of reticence and stiff upper lip - I'm a sceptic on all this stuff but let's go with it for these purposes - then you could argue it's an integral part of British culture to not celebrate British culture.
Isn’t it more just a legacy of confidence. We were “top nation” for a long time and during a period where communications and culture spread through the world more easily through quicker transport, newspaper, culture, the telegraph.
The Victorian age when we were at our zenith was really the first chunk of the modern age so we were THE BRITISH, top dog, biggest Empire, best technology, finest navy the world had ever seen, our language and literature spreading through the world so we didn’t feel weak or worried about who we were.
That legacy stayed in our culture until relatively recently, we don’t salute the flag, we look on quizzically when someone sets fire to the flag in some dusty corner of the Middle East or hits a picture of the Queen/King with their sandal.
We could look around and see our influence, we had been a major part in keeping the world free from tyranny and so could wear patriotism lightly.
It’s like the critique of public schoolboys being overly and effortlessly confident. We don’t brag about how amazing we are, we don’t remind everyone that when we were exclusively running the show and the plebs knew their place the country was the bestest in the world, we just know.
That sureness has been eroded by large scale immigration and mixing of global cultures changing who we are so we can’t use the crutch of who we were. So when other cultures that we don’t really feel part of are celebrated and “ours” feels denigrated it starts to grate and inevitably there will be a reaction.
The French on the other hand are just immensely full of misplaced pride and pâté.
I do think there's a correlation between insecurity (the feeling of) and grievance about loss of national identity/culture.
But I'm not the best person to go down the hole on this one because I don't really believe in national characteristics, eg the idea of a whole people being 'proud' or 'warm' or 'dynamic' etc or their negative equivalents.
I think almost all of that stuff is a fiction. It's mainly just a way of talking that some people like to do. Oil in the wheels of chit chat. It's usually harmless, fun even, like your last para, but it can be a cover or an enabler for things that aren't so harmless.
Whatever, I don't partake. It's just not me.
I agree to the extent that I don't think there are necessarily nationally, uniformly spread characteristics, in the way people imagine.
But there are achievements located in particular cultures and places, which we might be nearer or further from in one country.
The problem that post-Victorian Britain has had is that military might is ephemeral, not a value unless tied to a concept of historical inevitability, and the triumph of the right
I would say that Britain has plenty to celebrate, but the inheritance of anti-intellectualism isn't just to make it obscure and largely forgotten as to the contenf, but to also to intimidate and mock people away from the whole process of actually finding out.
Yes there's overlap between the concepts of (national) culture, identity and characteristics, but these three things are not the same.
Broadly speaking I think the first is real but exaggerated, the second is real but imagined, and the third is almost entirely fiction.
We're talking in parallel rather than in turns here, I sense, but that's absolutely ok.
“It can now be revealed that a briefing paper circulated to Cabinet ministers two months later said the [2024] riot hotspots were largely in places where there had been a high number of Afghan arrivals.
In the document, seen by The Telegraph, an official said: “The recent far-Right disorder targeting asylum seekers and Muslim communities was the worst outbreak of racial violence in the UK for decades.
“We know that 15 out of the 20 primary disorder hotspots are in the top 20 per cent of local authorities with the highest numbers of supported asylum seekers and Afghan resettlement arrivals.””
No shit, Sherlock.
So they have, are, and will be repeating the methods of Mosley at Cable Street, and every similar group before and since - see for example the stuff that Tommy Robinson did using the EDL. And plan to do the same.
Who knew?
This after an endless rhetoric of delusional wibble about how calling the riots last summer 'far right' was "Two Tier", and a put up job. Which flies in the face of actual journalists doing actual reporting in TV and Radio documentaries who have been saying the same for months that was in the briefing.
What the fuck are you on about? It’s the government that lied and schemed and deceived the people
I'm not actually sure what you are commenting on there, Leon (so I can't reply):
a - The riots last summer, and subsequent police investigations / legal actions etc, and commentary we have seen since.
b - This and the last Government keeping quiet about the work being done to bring Afghans such as translators who had served the British Forces in Afghanistan over here as immigrants, as is their entitlement, in order to minimise risk to them.
The government made a catastrophic error that has cost us billions. It decided the best way to solve this was import 100,000 people
It then decided the best thing was to do all this in secret and lie to parliament and the voters and gag the press for two years. £7bn
Yet you can’t see a problem. People like you ARE part of the problem
We need a Reform government ASAP and let’s hope it works because after that the alternatives get worse
You really do need to go and read some background before you come out with this stuff.
It would be better for your blood pressure. It probably strengthens the quadriceps and the calf muscles, though.
You don't have a clue what a Reform Govt will do, because they don't have a clue themselves. They will turn around in the breeze like a wind sock. It's only a few years ago that the party was promising to address Net Zero. Now because it's fashionable on the stupid end of the right, they've turned their coat.
(Have a good evening all. This has the feel of a quagmire, and I'm not spending time on it.)
You have no argument, you don’t grasp the basic points, you run away. Brilliant performance, not
I am loath to criticise my former BBC colleagues and I’m aware they weren’t in on the story. But the idea of a TV presenter losing his job being the top story on the website as opposed to Parliament being kept in the dark for two years about the Afghan data leak is risible.
The super injunction story is just astonishing. A terrible, terrible cock up putting many people at risk but none of the media are even allowed to make any reference to it, let alone hold the perpetrators to account? Is this really a free country anymore? These super injunctions need to be stopped.
Is it a democracy if a decision with such fiscal and security consequences can be made like that?
In the 1960s the UK government managed to keep a fairly substantial war with Indonesia quiet, only disclosing that it had happened in 1974. So it it not the first time. But it does raise serious questions about our pretense that our government is accountable.
Whilst this is far from ideal, I would love someone to name a democracy that doesn’t have deep government secrets. We accept that some info cannot be released for 25/50/100 years because of damage it could do to the country’s interests, is this actually much different?
If this had cost a couple of million quid would people be more “meh”, is it the money, is it that we had to rescue people who helped our military when we went in and occupied, is it that some idiot lost his laptop or that whoever found it decided to have a snoop around and alert people?
I would be staggered if there aren’t plenty of terrible atrocities or mistakes that the likes of France, Belgium, The US, Italy etc have covered up or massively suppressed.
The US certainly buried most of the shit they did in Vietnam for many decades (to take just one example).
Seems that 10% of the UK's working age population are on UC with *no requirement* to find work. Then there is a further 10%+ that has some conditionality. Note that the numbers have been climbing due to people being switched from legacy benefits to UC so the numbers will grow again. And yet we have one of the highest levels of engagement in Europe.
Seems Northern Europe has more of a work ethic than Southern Europe.
I am loath to criticise my former BBC colleagues and I’m aware they weren’t in on the story. But the idea of a TV presenter losing his job being the top story on the website as opposed to Parliament being kept in the dark for two years about the Afghan data leak is risible.
The super injunction story is just astonishing. A terrible, terrible cock up putting many people at risk but none of the media are even allowed to make any reference to it, let alone hold the perpetrators to account? Is this really a free country anymore? These super injunctions need to be stopped.
Is it a democracy if a decision with such fiscal and security consequences can be made like that?
In the 1960s the UK government managed to keep a fairly substantial war with Indonesia quiet, only disclosing that it had happened in 1974. So it it not the first time. But it does raise serious questions about our pretense that our government is accountable.
Whilst this is far from ideal, I would love someone to name a democracy that doesn’t have deep government secrets. We accept that some info cannot be released for 25/50/100 years because of damage it could do to the country’s interests, is this actually much different?
If this had cost a couple of million quid would people be more “meh”, is it the money, is it that we had to rescue people who helped our military when we went in and occupied, is it that some idiot lost his laptop or that whoever found it decided to have a snoop around and alert people?
I would be staggered if there aren’t plenty of terrible atrocities or mistakes that the likes of France, Belgium, The US, Italy etc have covered up or massively suppressed.
The US certainly buried most of the shit they did in Vietnam for many decades (to take just one example).
All of the condemnation is pretty much true. Many really bad things go unremarked. Almost all good things go unremarked too.
From a practical point of view Reform and Kemkaran are correct, we do need social care visas to ensure we have enough careworkers to look after her elderly with dementia etc.
However the risk for Reform is most of their core vote wants no more immigrants full stop and Lowe is targeting them, even if it might help them reach swing voters who are more pragmatic
Established Liberals A secure and internationally-minded group who trust expertise and institutions. They see Britain as part of a liberal global system and believe in reform through established democratic processes.
Liberal yes, institutions no. Possibly because I did not choose the 'burn it all down' kind of choices, but I'm a sceptic not an anarchist or an institutionalist.
I absolutely do believe in liberal democracy though.
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
Established Liberals A secure and internationally-minded group who trust expertise and institutions. They see Britain as part of a liberal global system and believe in reform through established democratic processes.
Liberal yes, institutions no. Possibly because I did not choose the 'burn it all down' kind of choices, but I'm a sceptic not an anarchist or an institutionalist.
I absolutely do believe in liberal democracy though.
Ditto on my result, and ditto on not thinking it was quite right.
Established Liberals A secure and internationally-minded group who trust expertise and institutions. They see Britain as part of a liberal global system and believe in reform through established democratic processes.
Liberal yes, institutions no. Possibly because I did not choose the 'burn it all down' kind of choices, but I'm a sceptic not an anarchist or an institutionalist.
I absolutely do believe in liberal democracy though.
Though having read what the other 6 segments are, I'd rather be an Established Liberal than any of that other stuff.
Also, it's weirdly accurate, because it's example of a Dissenting Disruptor is basically my life, exactly:
"Alex comes home from another long day driving deliveries around Middlesbrough and opens a bottle of cider in his small back garden as the sun sets behind the terraced houses.
At 48, he is tired of greeting customers that do not speak English when they answer the door - it happens more and more these days, and he cannot help thinking his dad never had to deal with this when he worked in the now shrunken steel industry. Alex misses the idea of Britain actually making things instead of just shuffling Amazon packages around, wondering how a country that once built ships and cars ended up employing people like him to deliver other countries' products to people who've just arrived."
Very interesting, not least in the fact that the only group the Tories lead with now is established Liberals, where they are 1% ahead of Labour and 15% of the LDs and 25% ahead of Reform.
Reform meanwhile are on a massive 58% with dissenting disruptors and Reform lead the Tories by 16% with rooted patriots and by 2% with traditional Conservatives. Reform lead Labour by 8% with sceptical scrollers too.
Labour lead the LDs meanwhile by 14% with the incrementalist Left and Labour lead the Greens by 3% with Progressive activists
The Telegraph has the full judicial exchange on the Afghans:
Mr Justice Chamberlain When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers’ reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government’s lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an “agreed narrative” in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public.
Comments
In the infinite universes theory, that might just apply to one.
I have little sympathy with them, but 'terrorism' it isn't.
Confecting hyperbolic penalties for what is essentially stupidity devalues the real offence.
The Victorian age when we were at our zenith was really the first chunk of the modern age so we were THE BRITISH, top dog, biggest Empire, best technology, finest navy the world had ever seen, our language and literature spreading through the world so we didn’t feel weak or worried about who we were.
That legacy stayed in our culture until relatively recently, we don’t salute the flag, we look on quizzically when someone sets fire to the flag in some dusty corner of the Middle East or hits a picture of the Queen/King with their sandal.
We could look around and see our influence, we had been a major part in keeping the world free from tyranny and so could wear patriotism lightly.
It’s like the critique of public schoolboys being overly and effortlessly confident. We don’t brag about how amazing we are, we don’t remind everyone that when we were exclusively running the show and the plebs knew their place the country was the bestest in the world, we just know.
That sureness has been eroded by large scale immigration and mixing of global cultures changing who we are so we can’t use the crutch of who we were. So when other cultures that we don’t really feel part of are celebrated and “ours” feels denigrated it starts to grate and inevitably there will be a reaction.
The French on the other hand are just immensely full of misplaced pride and pâté.
Until we get over this, and return to the intellectual achievements of the eighteenth century, celebrating Britain is always going to be highly contested, and unnecessarily complex.
The falls are not large, we are not yet falling into recession, but we are not growing, we are treading water at best.
The UK law (often updated) is now so broad that it captures both the risible and the seriously dangerous under the same rubric.
Wikipedia had this, which is ... not unreasonable.
...Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.[1] The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants.[2] There are various different definitions of terrorism, with no universal agreement about it.[3][4][5] Different definitions of terrorism emphasize its randomness, its aim to instil fear, and its broader impact beyond its immediate victims...
Does the Leonardo incident instil fear in you - or just irritation ?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/30/russia-consulate-new-york-vandalized-ukraine-war
What did the fence say in their statement, was it scared?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/15/ministers-fear-riots-secret-afghan-asylum-scheme-public-uk/
“It can now be revealed that a briefing paper circulated to Cabinet ministers two months later said the [2024] riot hotspots were largely in places where there had been a high number of Afghan arrivals.
In the document, seen by The Telegraph, an official said: “The recent far-Right disorder targeting asylum seekers and Muslim communities was the worst outbreak of racial violence in the UK for decades.
“We know that 15 out of the 20 primary disorder hotspots are in the top 20 per cent of local authorities with the highest numbers of supported asylum seekers and Afghan resettlement arrivals.””
Sadly I expect that there will still be a large proportion who will suffer that fate, I'm unconvinced by the argument that the threat to their lives has diminished over time.
I had not seen this Fox News extended interview with Trump from 2024 — where they deliberately edited his Epstein answer — where he won’t commit to releasing the full files because of “phony” stuff in it.
https://x.com/KFILE/status/1944769200310137127
Are the people targeted friends or opponents of Trump?
When we know that, we can decide.
Bit of a head-scratcher for the plastic patriots.
Lewis Goodall
@lewis_goodall
·
1h
I am loath to criticise my former BBC colleagues and I’m aware they weren’t in on the story. But the idea of a TV presenter losing his job being the top story on the website as opposed to Parliament being kept in the dark for two years about the Afghan data leak is risible.
There are lots of British people who could do those jobs; it's just that the economics didn't make sense for them. There's no removal of benefits to factor in for a Kenyan careworker, so they don't have the same calculation.
Wikipedia isn't trying to write the law, just give an overview of the subject. Which it has a fair stab at (rather better than our governments, IMO).
The right question is what do we need to do to get economic growth moving, so that rising tax receipts cover expenses?
They both have to go. They are the uniparty. Chuck them in the bin of Eternity and let Nigel have a go
He simply cannot be worse. At the very least he is not a traitor
So they have, are, and will be repeating the methods of Mosley at Cable Street, and every similar group before and since - see for example the stuff that Tommy Robinson did using the EDL. And plan to do the same.
Who knew?
This after an endless rhetoric of delusional wibble about how calling the riots last summer 'far right' was "Two Tier", and a put up job. Which flies in the face of actual journalists doing actual reporting in TV and Radio documentaries who have been saying the same for months that was in the briefing.
IMHO, the Victorians were also intellectually ahead of their contemporaries in the previous century.
I always used to look up to it as one of the leading lights, so it is really disappointing to see how far it has fallen of late, I can only guess due to a quiet desperation of trying to compete, knowing it is becoming increasingly obsolete as an organisation.
@Acyn
·
7m
Reporter: Did Bondi tell you your name appeared in the Epstein files?
Trump: No.. I would say these files were made up by Comey and Obama, made up by the Biden…
I despair of the BBC increasingly. Who is making these editorial decisions?
Labour need to impose a new chair and board and executive team.
If this had cost a couple of million quid would people be more “meh”, is it the money, is it that we had to rescue people who helped our military when we went in and occupied, is it that some idiot lost his laptop or that whoever found it decided to have a snoop around and alert people?
I would be staggered if there aren’t plenty of terrible atrocities or mistakes that the likes of France, Belgium, The US, Italy etc have covered up or massively suppressed.
We are so fuckin far from any of it.
But I'm not the best person to go down the hole on this one because I don't really believe in national characteristics, eg the idea of a whole people being 'proud' or 'warm' or 'dynamic' etc or their negative equivalents.
I think almost all of that stuff is a fiction. It's mainly just a way of talking that some people like to do. Oil in the wheels of chit chat. It's usually harmless, fun even, like your last para, but it can be a cover or an enabler for things that aren't so harmless.
Whatever, I don't partake. It's just not me.
a - The riots last summer, and subsequent police investigations / legal actions etc, and commentary we have seen since.
b - This and the last Government keeping quiet about the work being done to bring Afghans such as translators who had served the British Forces in Afghanistan over here as immigrants, as is their entitlement, in order to minimise risk to them.
You have no imagination at all.
As I mentioned he has pivoted from an obsession with getting them released, to I think a claim that they don't exist (a couple of days ago?), to an assertion that it was all made up by his opponents.
Nothing whatsoever to do with Ghislaine Maxwell's Appeal reaching the Supreme Court, and the possibility of material actually being released by a route he can't control as she may offer cooperation in return for release or a lighter sentence.
Much of the chorus (eg Charlie Kirk) who have been demanding how it will all be clear once the files are released, have suddenly done a 180.
It then decided the best thing was to do all this in secret and lie to parliament and the voters and gag the press for two years. £7bn
Yet you can’t see a problem. People like you ARE part of the problem
We need a Reform government ASAP and let’s hope it works because after that the alternatives get worse
https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/436427/the-victorians-by-jacob-rees-mogg/9780753548547
Seems that 10% of the UK's working age population are on UC with *no requirement* to find work. Then there is a further 10%+ that has some conditionality. Note that the numbers have been climbing due to people being switched from legacy benefits to UC so the numbers will grow again. And yet we have one of the highest levels of engagement in Europe.
Seems Northern Europe has more of a work ethic than Southern Europe.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Employment_-_annual_statistics
Just enforce the law. Stop bending it to 'make a point', whether it's a good point or a bad one.
@AmbJohnBolton
Trump's decision to provide Patriot missiles and other air-defense weaponry to Ukraine is the right decision. But no one should see this as a decisive, irreversible course change. It would be dangerous for Ukraine and its supporters to treat it that way. As Trump said, he may be "disappointed" with Putin, but he is far from being "done with him."
(Among other things, Opus Dei was designed to engineer a Catholic Work Ethic, but it was pretty weird from the start.)
But there are achievements located in particular cultures and places, which we might be nearer or further from in one country.
The problem that post-Victorian Britain has had is that military might is ephemeral, not a value unless tied to a concept of historical inevitability, and the triumph of the right
I would say that Britain has plenty to celebrate, but the inheritance of anti-intellectualism isn't just to make it obscure and largely forgotten as to the contenf, but to also to intimidate and mock people away from the whole process of actually finding out.
(More seriously, what is the minimal loyal circle Trump needs to keep round him to be impregnable?)
And the same applies to immigrant and British, and immigrant British, communities, before and since, including those targeted by the far right fomented riots last summer.
It would be better for your blood pressure. It probably strengthens the quadriceps and the calf muscles, though.
You don't have a clue what a Reform Govt will do, because they don't have a clue themselves. They will turn around in the breeze like a wind sock. It's only a few years ago that the party was promising to address Net Zero. Now because it's fashionable on the stupid end of the right, they've turned their coat.
(Have a good evening all. This has the feel of a quagmire, and I'm not spending time on it.)
Broadly speaking I think the first is real but exaggerated, the second is real but imagined, and the third is almost entirely fiction.
We're talking in parallel rather than in turns here, I sense, but that's absolutely ok.
Eg, Turkey has 78% male employment but only 39% female. Italy 77% / 57%.
Whereas Finland is 77% / 77%.
However the risk for Reform is most of their core vote wants no more immigrants full stop and Lowe is targeting them, even if it might help them reach swing voters who are more pragmatic
I think I can identify which tribe some contributors on here belong to.
https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/seven-segments/quiz/
I'm a progressive activist.
https://x.com/golfdigest/status/1945084133941649919?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Established Liberals
A secure and internationally-minded group who trust expertise and institutions. They see Britain as part of a liberal global system and believe in reform through established democratic processes.
Liberal yes, institutions no. Possibly because I did not choose the 'burn it all down' kind of choices, but I'm a sceptic not an anarchist or an institutionalist.
I absolutely do believe in liberal democracy though.
Mr Justice Chamberlain
When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude [£7billion]…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. It's not secret intelligence programmes - it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening. There was going to be an announcement made [to Parliament] but which…the word 'cover' is used. The basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.
Jude Bunting KC
One of the key issues in the political debate right now is who is telling the truth about the public deficit. This is directly relevant to that debate. And another key issue is immigration. The injunction is stopping informed debate about how to house people coming to this country...That 'agreed narrative' is misleading the public by omission.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain
The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but we are seeing a witness statement indicating a statement to Parliament to provide 'cover'. It is a very, very striking thing.
Jude Bunting KC
The Government is saying it is going to deliberately mislead the public.
Mr Justice Chamberlain
It is very striking.
Jude Bunting KC
It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public being informed about the reason for £6billion of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate. The courts have enabled the government to put a false narrative in place that would be corrosive.
Mr Justice Chamberlain
How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now saying how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative, or not a full narrative.
Jude Bunting KC
Journalists will be unable to ask questions or report or correct and fill in gaps.
Cathryn McGahey KC
It is acknowledged that the public's ability to know how its money is being spent and parliamentary scrutiny [are being impeded] but on the basis that the injunction is saving lives.
Mr Justice Chamberlain
There has been this further information about how the government is going to provide 'cover', as it's put, for the political consequences of bringing people to the UK by a statement that does not tell the whole truth to Parliament?
Cathryn McGahey KC
It would tell as much of the truth as possible.
Mr Justice Chamberlain
I'm starting to doubt myself - am I going bonkers, because it really is £6billion? [Later confirmed to be £7billion]
Cathryn McGahey KC
It is…Yes it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.
Not sure how good the seven divides are.
Like it
Also, it's weirdly accurate, because it's example of a Dissenting Disruptor is basically my life, exactly:
"Alex comes home from another long day driving deliveries around Middlesbrough and opens a bottle of cider in his small back garden as the sun sets behind the terraced houses.
At 48, he is tired of greeting customers that do not speak English when they answer the door - it happens more and more these days, and he cannot help thinking his dad never had to deal with this when he worked in the now shrunken steel industry. Alex misses the idea of Britain actually making things instead of just shuffling Amazon packages around, wondering how a country that once built ships and cars ended up employing people like him to deliver other countries' products to people who've just arrived."
Reform meanwhile are on a massive 58% with dissenting disruptors and Reform lead the Tories by 16% with rooted patriots and by 2% with traditional Conservatives. Reform lead Labour by 8% with sceptical scrollers too.
Labour lead the LDs meanwhile by 14% with the incrementalist Left and Labour lead the Greens by 3% with Progressive activists
https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/seven-segments/
How very sinister….