I’m just bored of supporting Ukraine. They never do anything. Just stupid drones and stuff. Their flag is ridiculous - wheat and sky? That’s like us having treacle pudding under a cloud
Also their spelling is dumb. Odesa with one S. Fuck that
GO PUTIN
I must admit, in my childhood atlasses, the city of Krivoy Rog, of which I knew nothing but the name, always sounded highly amusing. Kryvyi Rih doesn't have the same ring.
But, now, it suffices me well to take both my amusement and inspiration from the one who has become the great war hero son of that city.
I’m just bored of supporting Ukraine. They never do anything. Just stupid drones and stuff. Their flag is ridiculous - wheat and sky? That’s like us having treacle pudding under a cloud
Also their spelling is dumb. Odesa with one S. Fuck that
GO PUTIN
So no change there then.
Suck it up, LOSER
We’ve got a bigger economy in Germany and some of the most easy-to-open windows in the world
Seven constituencies where the number of 16-17 year olds is greater than Labour's majority over an independent candidate:
Bethnal Green and Stepney Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North Birmingham Ladywood Birmingham Yardley Bradford West Ilford North Rochdale
Top 10 constituencies with the most 16-17 year olds in England and Wales:
Birmingham Ladywood Bradford West Bradford East Birmingham Perry Barr Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North Barking Ilford South Edmonton and Winchmore Hill East Ham Enfield North
Just a reminder about what local by-elections we have today. There is a Con defence in Denbighshire and a double defence in Dartford. Labour are defending in Basildon and Neath Port Talbot. There are single defences for Lib Dems in Harborough, Green in Liverpool, and PC in Rhondda Cynon Taf. Finally we have another Reform defence - this time in Staffordshire.
Interesting set
Basildon is in the Bas/Billy seat - should be Ref gain but the candidate has a history of 'colourful' social media posts Dartford - one an easy Ref gain, the other the Tories might hold on to but i fancy 2 x Ref gain Staffordshire - if it follows the pattern of the two other Ref defences then Con gain possible as only a few votes in it in May Denbighshire - Cons best remaining part of Wales so perhaps Con hold? Port Talbot - Ref gain Harborough LD hold Green and PC holds just because green is a nice colour
Seven constituencies where the number of 16-17 year olds is greater than Labour's majority over an independent candidate:
Bethnal Green and Stepney Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North Birmingham Ladywood Birmingham Yardley Bradford West Ilford North Rochdale
Top 10 constituencies with the most 16-17 year olds in England and Wales:
Birmingham Ladywood Bradford West Bradford East Birmingham Perry Barr Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North Barking Ilford South Edmonton and Winchmore Hill East Ham Enfield North
Wicked! I is here in da North Ilford Ghetto! I'm 16 going on 50
Seven constituencies where the number of 16-17 year olds is greater than Labour's majority over an independent candidate:
Bethnal Green and Stepney Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North Birmingham Ladywood Birmingham Yardley Bradford West Ilford North Rochdale
Top 10 constituencies with the most 16-17 year olds in England and Wales:
Birmingham Ladywood Bradford West Bradford East Birmingham Perry Barr Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North Barking Ilford South Edmonton and Winchmore Hill East Ham Enfield North
Just an aside - Yardley, Hodge Hill and Rochdale arent majorities over indies, they were the three seats Galloways WPB almost took
I’m just bored of supporting Ukraine. They never do anything. Just stupid drones and stuff. Their flag is ridiculous - wheat and sky? That’s like us having treacle pudding under a cloud
Also their spelling is dumb. Odesa with one S. Fuck that
GO PUTIN
Russia also does stupid drones. And pronounces Russia with three syllables. And their flag looks a bit French.
Seven constituencies where the number of 16-17 year olds is greater than Labour's majority over an independent candidate:
Bethnal Green and Stepney Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North Birmingham Ladywood Birmingham Yardley Bradford West Ilford North Rochdale
Top 10 constituencies with the most 16-17 year olds in England and Wales:
Birmingham Ladywood Bradford West Bradford East Birmingham Perry Barr Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North Barking Ilford South Edmonton and Winchmore Hill East Ham Enfield North
Just an aside - Yardley, Hodge Hill and Rochdale arent majorities over indies, they were the three seats Galloways WPB almost took
WPB and Gaza indies are a distinction without a difference I think tbh.
Seven constituencies where the number of 16-17 year olds is greater than Labour's majority over an independent candidate:
Bethnal Green and Stepney Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North Birmingham Ladywood Birmingham Yardley Bradford West Ilford North Rochdale
Top 10 constituencies with the most 16-17 year olds in England and Wales:
Birmingham Ladywood Bradford West Bradford East Birmingham Perry Barr Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North Barking Ilford South Edmonton and Winchmore Hill East Ham Enfield North
Just an aside - Yardley, Hodge Hill and Rochdale arent majorities over indies, they were the three seats Galloways WPB almost took
WPB and Gaza indies are a distinction without a difference I think tbh.
Fair comment yes! In fact, James Giles who came second in Hodge Hill is very heavily involved with the Magic Grandpa 4
Look at the top of your browser and you'll see the damn fools running the site have left the title as ‘High Court Judgment Template’ – a mere hop, skip and jump away from sending everyone's inside leg measurements to the Taliban by mistake.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
Since we’re not officially at war with Russia, more like 1938. Of course in 1940 we’d gone to war to defend Poland which by that time was well carved up by AH and one of Putin’s direct antecedents, Stalin. Still, only another few months in the hall of mirrors before the USSR became our brave and honourable ally.
Did anyone in power actually think Stalin or Russia were 'honourable' during the war ?
It'd be interesting to know, as stuff I've read - mostly written after the war - paints the picture of aiding Russia after Barbarossa being the least-worst of a series of bad options.
It's interesting to consider though. Was it the right choice?
Would it have been better to use the resources sent to the USSR to make faster progress on the Western Front? Might then more of Europe have ended the war free of Nazi *and* Soviet occupation?
I can't help feel that helping the enemy of one's enemy, while tempting in the short term, often ends up creating more problems later.
It's an interesting question. The Russophile line seems to be that they did not need western aid in WW2, and it made no difference. Whilst the US/UK aid (and vast amounts came from the UK) was that the aid made a massive difference to Russian successes in the east.
I'm firmly in the latter view, and think that our aid helped Russia massively and, even if it did not stop their defeat, it shortened the war considerably. But I am biased, as I understand my granddad served on ships sailing to Russia.
Could Hitler have defeated Russia without our aid to the defenders? Perhaps; it was a close-run thing. But even if not, our aid allowed Russia to progress faster in the east during their offensives, and that blood that cost them saved our own blood.
As with all historical counter-factuals, we cannot go back and run the experiment again. Buy allying with Russia did make sense at the time, even when we knew Stalin's capacity for back-stabbing, treachery and genocide.
Interestingly, I recently read a book stating that both the US and UK stopped spying on Russia after Barbarossa, as we were desperate to keep Stalin on-side. Whilst Stalin redoubled efforts to spy on us, his allies.
JJ - I'm interested that your Grandad worked on ships sailing to Russia, because my great uncle flew RAF planes accompanying such ships - but I know little more than that. Presumably your Grandad was sailing to Arctic Ocean ports? Do you know which ones, and at what point in the war?
No. We know he was in DEMS (Defensive Equipped Merchant Ships), and he once talked of sailing out on a ship in a convoy until it was out of German air threat, then taking a bosun's chair with his gun onto a merchant ship going the other way. Hence he sat sail to America many times, but never arrived there. The ships had gun mounts welded onto them, but there were not enough guns or crew, causing the mid-Atlantic swaps.
He did mention the Russian convoys a couple of times, but I have no idea where he was heading. I do have a picture somewhere of him in his thirties, looking identical to me at that age, on a ship covered in ice. He also talked of having to break ice of the ship because the weight was affecting stability. The Russian convoys would have required air cover, but I've no idea if DEMS operated them.
He also mentioned seeing ships either side of his in convoy being sunk, something that upset him. Because he was a mathematician he got stationed on land, where *allegedly* he was involved with writing instructions for ships' captains for D-Day. He did not go home for weeks beforehand, as he knew many of the details. I have zero evidence of that, but it is family legend. One ship he was on got sunk shortly after he was transferred.
I wish I'd talked to him more about it, but he was reticent. Understandably so.
Murmansk would presumably have been the Russian destination ? It was the go to port for European supplies to Russia, since WWI.
And Archangel which was further into the White Sea but further from the Finnish border.
Like JJ, my grandfather was on the convoys. He was in the RN and served on the Atlantic, Malta and Russian convoys at various times but mostly on light cruisers. Shipwrecked 3 times but thankfiully never on the Arctic convoys. He died in 1975 and my Grandmother finally got his Arctic Star in 2012, just before she died. A few years ago I was looking through the IWM website and came across a photo of him I had never known about from his time on HMS Hermione.
He is the chap in the middle with the glasses.
As it happens, I am just taking a break from driving, at the site of the Narvik landings in 1940. Photo tomorrow, as I have had mine for today. Still sunny, and even warmer: 23C here today - but there are a few showers off to the north; some rain would be a novelty.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
If they were banned on the same basis under wartime powers that would be a more justifiable thing than banning them under terrorism legislation. As it is it's dangerous scope creep of powers that should have remained annually renewed by Parliament, rather than an indefinite part of statute law.
There seems to be a misunderstanding that all groups put on the proscribed list are basically ISIS or the IRA. There is Hizbut Tahrir who are avowed non-violent. There are far right extremist groups on there that have never carried at a "terrorist attack".
The case for 16 and 17 year old voting is that it helps form a habit that raises overall participation in time. I’m still not really in favour, but it’s a good argument.
Good morning from New York. I can’t get my head around the precise details of the super-injunction, but the settled opinion of politically aware (and impeccably liberal, obvs) people I know here is that Britain is where free speech goes to die.
The super-injunction(s), the proscription of PA under Anti-Terrorism laws, the punitive imprisonment of Lucy Connolly, the libel laws, and even the dismissal of John Torode are all symptoms of a country that has taken the wrong path.
There are even subjects we can’t discuss here, which is on one hand is a reasonable editorial decision, but on the other, mirrors the generally repressive approach toward dissent against “right-thinking” in the UK.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
If they were banned on the same basis under wartime powers that would be a more justifiable thing than banning them under terrorism legislation. As it is it's dangerous scope creep of powers that should have remained annually renewed by Parliament, rather than an indefinite part of statute law.
There seems to be a misunderstanding that all groups put on the proscribed list are basically ISIS or the IRA. There is Hizbut Tahrir who are avowed non-violent. There are far right extremist groups on there that have never carried at a "terrorist attack".
The case for 16 and 17 year old voting is that it helps form a habit that raises overall participation in time. I’m still not really in favour, but it’s a good argument.
Good morning from New York. I can’t get my head around the precise details of the super-injunction, but the settled opinion of politically aware (and impeccably liberal, obvs) people I know here is that Britain is where free speech goes to die.
The super-injunction(s), the proscription of PA under Anti-Terrorism laws, the punitive imprisonment of Lucy Connolly, the libel laws, and even the dismissal of John Torode are all symptoms of a country that has taken the wrong path.
There are even subjects we can’t discuss here, which is on one hand is a reasonable editorial decision, but on the other, mirrors the generally repressive approach toward dissent against “right-thinking” in the UK.
Richard Osman has claimed that John Tordoe was a) given the option to go on an anti-racist course, which he told them to f##k off and b) that the Sunday papers have further stories about him. The claims of him saying something racist was the only occurrence they felt legally able to stand up. Him saying that felt very much like he was doing the bidding of the BBC / the production company.
In these cases of "they said some racist", I want to know what they said, as there is racist and there is racist and context is important. If the further stories is he was at times that the "talent" was grumpy arrogant sod, again I don't give a shit, that is not the same as come into my hotel room and getting your wang out.
I’m just bored of supporting Ukraine. They never do anything. Just stupid drones and stuff. Their flag is ridiculous - wheat and sky? That’s like us having treacle pudding under a cloud
Also their spelling is dumb. Odesa with one S. Fuck that
GO PUTIN
Russia also does stupid drones. And pronounces Russia with three syllables. And their flag looks a bit French.
The flag is a feature, not a bug.
Peter the Great was so impressed by Dutch naval power that he took their flag for his own fledging navy (with the stripes reversed), from which it went on to represent Russia as a whole. And where did the French get their flag? Also from the Dutch, but with the stripes reoriented. as a recognised symbol of the transition from monarchy to republic.
The case for 16 and 17 year old voting is that it helps form a habit that raises overall participation in time. I’m still not really in favour, but it’s a good argument.
Good morning from New York. I can’t get my head around the precise details of the super-injunction, but the settled opinion of politically aware (and impeccably liberal, obvs) people I know here is that Britain is where free speech goes to die.
The super-injunction(s), the proscription of PA under Anti-Terrorism laws, the punitive imprisonment of Lucy Connolly, the libel laws, and even the dismissal of John Torode are all symptoms of a country that has taken the wrong path.
Are these poltically aware people you know in the States aware that free speech is also dying on its arse in the US when papers like WaPo are bought by billionaires and their editorial lines are compromised, where half the population watches news that’s idea of free speech is just flat out lies? Where the president of the land of free speech bans reporters from multiple publications from the seat of power for having the wrong views so only the right questions can be asked and broadcast?
Like with the NYT and it’s Brexit Britain obsession, there seem to be a lot of very arrogant superior Americans (hey, we might have locked up Lucy Connolly, just not in El Salvador or Eswatini) who would be best focussing on their country’s absolute clown show and problems rather than ours. Do pass this on to them. Thanks.
The case for 16 and 17 year old voting is that it helps form a habit that raises overall participation in time. I’m still not really in favour, but it’s a good argument.
Good morning from New York. I can’t get my head around the precise details of the super-injunction, but the settled opinion of politically aware (and impeccably liberal, obvs) people I know here is that Britain is where free speech goes to die.
The super-injunction(s), the proscription of PA under Anti-Terrorism laws, the punitive imprisonment of Lucy Connolly, the libel laws, and even the dismissal of John Torode are all symptoms of a country that has taken the wrong path.
Are these poltically aware people you know in the States aware that free speech is also dying on its arse in the US when papers like WaPo are bought by billionaires and their editorial lines are compromised, where half the population watches news that’s idea of free speech is just flat out lies? Where the president of the land of free speech bans reporters from multiple publications from the seat of power for having the wrong views so only the right questions can be asked and broadcast?
Like with the NYT and it’s Brexit Britain obsession, there seem to be a lot of very arrogant superior Americans (hey, we might have locked up Lucy Connolly, just not in El Salvador or Eswatini) who would be best focussing on their country’s absolute clown show and problems rather than ours. Do pass this on to them. Thanks.
I’m surprised you picked the WaPo. Surely the best example is Twitter?
UK 30 year gilts now 5.5%, a level not seen since 1998 👍
Slow motion Liz Truss. The country is one poorly received fiscal event away from a full blown debt/currency crisis. Right now Sterling is gradually weakening which is covering the government's blushes a bit but one wrong move and it becomes a crisis.
You need to understand financial markets better.
We CANNOT have a debt crisis as we print our own currency, and 99.5% of UK government debt is denominated in it. The increase in interest rates is caused as much by pre-announced quantitative tightening as it is by any market issues.
We CAN have a currency crisis but, well, the currency falls a bit. Big deal. It fell by about 15% when we voted to leave the EU and nobody apart from a few importers and holiday makers noticed much. Anyway, there's not much sign of one - the trade weighted index is up about 12% in the last three years.
In many ways, it would be easier if we were to have an acute crisis, like France in 1983. It would force Milei-like reforms. But our main issue is medium-term stagnation, which is much more difficult to muster the political will to deal with. So we'll probably just go on drifting for the next few years - more likely because the French and the Germans are doing just as bad, or even worse.
The case for 16 and 17 year old voting is that it helps form a habit that raises overall participation in time. I’m still not really in favour, but it’s a good argument.
Good morning from New York. I can’t get my head around the precise details of the super-injunction, but the settled opinion of politically aware (and impeccably liberal, obvs) people I know here is that Britain is where free speech goes to die.
The super-injunction(s), the proscription of PA under Anti-Terrorism laws, the punitive imprisonment of Lucy Connolly, the libel laws, and even the dismissal of John Torode are all symptoms of a country that has taken the wrong path.
There are even subjects we can’t discuss here, which is on one hand is a reasonable editorial decision, but on the other, mirrors the generally repressive approach toward dissent against “right-thinking” in the UK.
Richard Osman has claimed that John Tordoe was a) given the option to go on an anti-racist course, which he told them to f##k off and b) that the Sunday papers have further stories about him. The claims of him saying something racist was the only occurrence they felt legally able to stand up. Him saying that felt very much like he was doing the bidding of the BBC / the production company.
In these cases of "they said some racist", I want to know what they said, as there is racist and there is racist and context is important. If the further stories is he was at times that the "talent" was grumpy arrogant sod, again I don't give a shit, that is not the same as come into my hotel room and getting your wang out.
Anyone can label anybody “racist”. It’s a modern-day “I saw Goody Proctor with the devil”.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
If they were banned on the same basis under wartime powers that would be a more justifiable thing than banning them under terrorism legislation. As it is it's dangerous scope creep of powers that should have remained annually renewed by Parliament, rather than an indefinite part of statute law.
There seems to be a misunderstanding that all groups put on the proscribed list are basically ISIS or the IRA. There is Hizbut Tahrir who are avowed non-violent. There are far right extremist groups on there that have never carried at a "terrorist attack".
Then, they oughtn’t be proscribed.
Hizbut Tahrir are really tricky. They are traitors. They are explicit they want to overthrown Western governments from within. The Tories rejected proscribing them for many years before eventually giving in.
The far right groups seem to get proscribed because they spread racist / conspiracy theory stuff on social media to whip up the mob. The thinking is proscribing them stops their supporters spreading this stuff. I am not sure that it works and also this threat is massively overstated e.g. even the riots that Starmer banged on about being far right riots and the police claiming it was far right groups organising them, just wasn't true. The terrorist "far right" is very small with experts suggest there are 10s of people under security service observation as those who might undertake a an attack rather than being a keyboard warrior.
The case for 16 and 17 year old voting is that it helps form a habit that raises overall participation in time. I’m still not really in favour, but it’s a good argument.
Good morning from New York. I can’t get my head around the precise details of the super-injunction, but the settled opinion of politically aware (and impeccably liberal, obvs) people I know here is that Britain is where free speech goes to die.
The super-injunction(s), the proscription of PA under Anti-Terrorism laws, the punitive imprisonment of Lucy Connolly, the libel laws, and even the dismissal of John Torode are all symptoms of a country that has taken the wrong path.
Are these poltically aware people you know in the States aware that free speech is also dying on its arse in the US when papers like WaPo are bought by billionaires and their editorial lines are compromised, where half the population watches news that’s idea of free speech is just flat out lies? Where the president of the land of free speech bans reporters from multiple publications from the seat of power for having the wrong views so only the right questions can be asked and broadcast?
Like with the NYT and it’s Brexit Britain obsession, there seem to be a lot of very arrogant superior Americans (hey, we might have locked up Lucy Connolly, just not in El Salvador or Eswatini) who would be best focussing on their country’s absolute clown show and problems rather than ours. Do pass this on to them. Thanks.
Prickly whataboutery doesn’t mitigate the actual issue in the UK. The aim is not to hold up the US as any kind of model, but rather to tell you what the UK looks like from the outside.
The case for 16 and 17 year old voting is that it helps form a habit that raises overall participation in time. I’m still not really in favour, but it’s a good argument.
Good morning from New York. I can’t get my head around the precise details of the super-injunction, but the settled opinion of politically aware (and impeccably liberal, obvs) people I know here is that Britain is where free speech goes to die.
The super-injunction(s), the proscription of PA under Anti-Terrorism laws, the punitive imprisonment of Lucy Connolly, the libel laws, and even the dismissal of John Torode are all symptoms of a country that has taken the wrong path.
There are even subjects we can’t discuss here, which is on one hand is a reasonable editorial decision, but on the other, mirrors the generally repressive approach toward dissent against “right-thinking” in the UK.
Richard Osman has claimed that John Tordoe was a) given the option to go on an anti-racist course, which he told them to f##k off and b) that the Sunday papers have further stories about him. The claims of him saying something racist was the only occurrence they felt legally able to stand up. Him saying that felt very much like he was doing the bidding of the BBC / the production company.
In these cases of "they said some racist", I want to know what they said, as there is racist and there is racist and context is important. If the further stories is he was at times that the "talent" was grumpy arrogant sod, again I don't give a shit, that is not the same as come into my hotel room and getting your wang out.
Anyone can label anybody “racist”. It’s a modern-day “I saw Goody Proctor with the devil”.
I am very suspicious when it is never made clear was exactly was said. It has alarm bells ringing that it was nowhere near as serious as what most normal people think of as racist behaviour.
Even a fair bit of the claims against Gregg Wallace weren't that bad, a lot of people people saying well I didn't find his joke funny, I was offended. But it was the shear weight of claims, the fact he was warned and carried on, and of course him regularly exposing himself.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
If they were banned on the same basis under wartime powers that would be a more justifiable thing than banning them under terrorism legislation. As it is it's dangerous scope creep of powers that should have remained annually renewed by Parliament, rather than an indefinite part of statute law.
There seems to be a misunderstanding that all groups put on the proscribed list are basically ISIS or the IRA. There is Hizbut Tahrir who are avowed non-violent. There are far right extremist groups on there that have never carried at a "terrorist attack".
Then there are the groups whose actions undoubtedly do constitute terrorism but who are mysteriously absent from the list of proscribed organisations, such as the Israeli settler movement.
The case for 16 and 17 year old voting is that it helps form a habit that raises overall participation in time. I’m still not really in favour, but it’s a good argument.
Good morning from New York. I can’t get my head around the precise details of the super-injunction, but the settled opinion of politically aware (and impeccably liberal, obvs) people I know here is that Britain is where free speech goes to die.
The super-injunction(s), the proscription of PA under Anti-Terrorism laws, the punitive imprisonment of Lucy Connolly, the libel laws, and even the dismissal of John Torode are all symptoms of a country that has taken the wrong path.
There are even subjects we can’t discuss here, which is on one hand is a reasonable editorial decision, but on the other, mirrors the generally repressive approach toward dissent against “right-thinking” in the UK.
Richard Osman has claimed that John Tordoe was a) given the option to go on an anti-racist course, which he told them to f##k off and b) that the Sunday papers have further stories about him. The claims of him saying something racist was the only occurrence they felt legally able to stand up. Him saying that felt very much like he was doing the bidding of the BBC / the production company.
In these cases of "they said some racist", I want to know what they said, as there is racist and there is racist and context is important. If the further stories is he was at times that the "talent" was grumpy arrogant sod, again I don't give a shit, that is not the same as come into my hotel room and getting your wang out.
Anyone can label anybody “racist”. It’s a modern-day “I saw Goody Proctor with the devil”.
You're right. Britain is in a right old mess, and getting worse
We will likely see major civil disorder within 5 years. However, so might America and half the West
The case for 16 and 17 year old voting is that it helps form a habit that raises overall participation in time. I’m still not really in favour, but it’s a good argument.
Good morning from New York. I can’t get my head around the precise details of the super-injunction, but the settled opinion of politically aware (and impeccably liberal, obvs) people I know here is that Britain is where free speech goes to die.
The super-injunction(s), the proscription of PA under Anti-Terrorism laws, the punitive imprisonment of Lucy Connolly, the libel laws, and even the dismissal of John Torode are all symptoms of a country that has taken the wrong path.
Are these poltically aware people you know in the States aware that free speech is also dying on its arse in the US when papers like WaPo are bought by billionaires and their editorial lines are compromised, where half the population watches news that’s idea of free speech is just flat out lies? Where the president of the land of free speech bans reporters from multiple publications from the seat of power for having the wrong views so only the right questions can be asked and broadcast?
Like with the NYT and it’s Brexit Britain obsession, there seem to be a lot of very arrogant superior Americans (hey, we might have locked up Lucy Connolly, just not in El Salvador or Eswatini) who would be best focussing on their country’s absolute clown show and problems rather than ours. Do pass this on to them. Thanks.
Prickly whataboutery doesn’t mitigate the actual issue in the UK. The aim is not to hold up the US as any kind of model, but rather to tell you what the UK looks like from the outside.
Are effete New Yorkers aware of how America looks from the outside?
In my experience, Yes. Liberal Americans I meet on my travels go out of their way to express agonised anti-Trump sentiments, to show they are "on the right side". They also look more furtive and bashful than I have seen before
The case for 16 and 17 year old voting is that it helps form a habit that raises overall participation in time. I’m still not really in favour, but it’s a good argument.
Good morning from New York. I can’t get my head around the precise details of the super-injunction, but the settled opinion of politically aware (and impeccably liberal, obvs) people I know here is that Britain is where free speech goes to die.
The super-injunction(s), the proscription of PA under Anti-Terrorism laws, the punitive imprisonment of Lucy Connolly, the libel laws, and even the dismissal of John Torode are all symptoms of a country that has taken the wrong path.
Are these poltically aware people you know in the States aware that free speech is also dying on its arse in the US when papers like WaPo are bought by billionaires and their editorial lines are compromised, where half the population watches news that’s idea of free speech is just flat out lies? Where the president of the land of free speech bans reporters from multiple publications from the seat of power for having the wrong views so only the right questions can be asked and broadcast?
Like with the NYT and it’s Brexit Britain obsession, there seem to be a lot of very arrogant superior Americans (hey, we might have locked up Lucy Connolly, just not in El Salvador or Eswatini) who would be best focussing on their country’s absolute clown show and problems rather than ours. Do pass this on to them. Thanks.
Prickly whataboutery doesn’t mitigate the actual issue in the UK. The aim is not to hold up the US as any kind of model, but rather to tell you what the UK looks like from the outside.
What's the Gardenwalker line on the Epstein Files debacle?
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
If they were banned on the same basis under wartime powers that would be a more justifiable thing than banning them under terrorism legislation. As it is it's dangerous scope creep of powers that should have remained annually renewed by Parliament, rather than an indefinite part of statute law.
There seems to be a misunderstanding that all groups put on the proscribed list are basically ISIS or the IRA. There is Hizbut Tahrir who are avowed non-violent. There are far right extremist groups on there that have never carried at a "terrorist attack".
Then, they oughtn’t be proscribed.
Hizbut Tahrir are really tricky. They are traitors. They are explicit they want to overthrown Western governments from within. The Tories rejected proscribing them for many years before eventually giving in.
The far right groups seem to get proscribed because they spread racist / conspiracy theory stuff on social media to whip up the mob. The thinking is proscribing them stops their supporters spreading this stuff. I am not sure that it works and also this threat is massively overstated e.g. even the riots that Starmer banged on about being far right riots and the police claiming it was far right groups organising them, just wasn't true. The terrorist "far right" is very small with experts suggest there are 10s of people under security service observation as those who might undertake a an attack rather than being a keyboard warrior.
I think these are two separate problems, as you say. One is actual terrorist organization - which is likely very limited, but critical to disrupt and prevent; the other is the increasing extremism of folks on social media, from where it leaks into mainstream discourse. Personally I think the best remedy is to treat larger scale social media companies as publishers, with all the attendant responsibilities.
We (liberal democracies) simply appear supine in the face of tech-induced political disintegration.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
If they were banned on the same basis under wartime powers that would be a more justifiable thing than banning them under terrorism legislation. As it is it's dangerous scope creep of powers that should have remained annually renewed by Parliament, rather than an indefinite part of statute law.
There seems to be a misunderstanding that all groups put on the proscribed list are basically ISIS or the IRA. There is Hizbut Tahrir who are avowed non-violent. There are far right extremist groups on there that have never carried at a "terrorist attack".
Then there are the groups whose actions undoubtedly do constitute terrorism but who are mysteriously absent from the list of proscribed organisations, such as the Israeli settler movement.
I think that's because their actions are not directed at the UK or people in the UK.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
If they were banned on the same basis under wartime powers that would be a more justifiable thing than banning them under terrorism legislation. As it is it's dangerous scope creep of powers that should have remained annually renewed by Parliament, rather than an indefinite part of statute law.
There seems to be a misunderstanding that all groups put on the proscribed list are basically ISIS or the IRA. There is Hizbut Tahrir who are avowed non-violent. There are far right extremist groups on there that have never carried at a "terrorist attack".
Then, they oughtn’t be proscribed.
Hizbut Tahrir are really tricky. They are traitors. They are explicit they want to overthrown Western governments from within. The Tories rejected proscribing them for many years before eventually giving in.
The far right groups seem to get proscribed because they spread racist / conspiracy theory stuff on social media to whip up the mob. The thinking is proscribing them stops their supporters spreading this stuff. I am not sure that it works and also this threat is massively overstated e.g. even the riots that Starmer banged on about being far right riots and the police claiming it was far right groups organising them, just wasn't true. The terrorist "far right" is very small with experts suggest there are 10s of people under security service observation as those who might undertake a an attack rather than being a keyboard warrior.
I think these are two separate problems, as you say. One is actual terrorist organization - which is likely very limited, but critical to disrupt and prevent; the other is the increasing extremism of folks on social media, from where it leaks into mainstream discourse. Personally I think the best remedy is to treat larger scale social media companies as publishers, with all the attendant responsibilities.
We (liberal democracies) simply appear supine in the face of tech-induced political disintegration.
There is also another practical issue in proscribing a specific group. These days you don't need to have this rigid organisational structure. The Telegraph have already revealed PA already recycling themselves as a no-name group with a digital footprint based overseas e.g. I am sure there is a big overlap with PA and Youth Demand who spin off from Just Stop Oil, which was just a rebrand / spin-off from Extinction Rebellion.
Its not like the old days where you need to physically meet up in a location and leads to much more organisational structure to get things done.
The case for 16 and 17 year old voting is that it helps form a habit that raises overall participation in time. I’m still not really in favour, but it’s a good argument.
Good morning from New York. I can’t get my head around the precise details of the super-injunction, but the settled opinion of politically aware (and impeccably liberal, obvs) people I know here is that Britain is where free speech goes to die.
The super-injunction(s), the proscription of PA under Anti-Terrorism laws, the punitive imprisonment of Lucy Connolly, the libel laws, and even the dismissal of John Torode are all symptoms of a country that has taken the wrong path.
Are these poltically aware people you know in the States aware that free speech is also dying on its arse in the US when papers like WaPo are bought by billionaires and their editorial lines are compromised, where half the population watches news that’s idea of free speech is just flat out lies? Where the president of the land of free speech bans reporters from multiple publications from the seat of power for having the wrong views so only the right questions can be asked and broadcast?
Like with the NYT and it’s Brexit Britain obsession, there seem to be a lot of very arrogant superior Americans (hey, we might have locked up Lucy Connolly, just not in El Salvador or Eswatini) who would be best focussing on their country’s absolute clown show and problems rather than ours. Do pass this on to them. Thanks.
Prickly whataboutery doesn’t mitigate the actual issue in the UK. The aim is not to hold up the US as any kind of model, but rather to tell you what the UK looks like from the outside.
Are effete New Yorkers aware of how America looks from the outside?
In my experience, Yes. Liberal Americans I meet on my travels go out of their way to express agonised anti-Trump sentiments, to show they are "on the right side". They also look more furtive and bashful than I have seen before
Nobody here thinks the US is in a good place. It’s deeply troubling, and darker still than whatever ails Britain.
But the US system is still federal, and individual states and municipalities retain decent power. That’s not the case in the UK, where authority outside of Westminster hasn’t really been a thing since at least the 1940s.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
If they were banned on the same basis under wartime powers that would be a more justifiable thing than banning them under terrorism legislation. As it is it's dangerous scope creep of powers that should have remained annually renewed by Parliament, rather than an indefinite part of statute law.
There seems to be a misunderstanding that all groups put on the proscribed list are basically ISIS or the IRA. There is Hizbut Tahrir who are avowed non-violent. There are far right extremist groups on there that have never carried at a "terrorist attack".
Then there are the groups whose actions undoubtedly do constitute terrorism but who are mysteriously absent from the list of proscribed organisations, such as the Israeli settler movement.
I think that's because their actions are not directed at the UK or people in the UK.
There seem to be plenty of other organisations on the list with no particular animosity towards the UK. ETA, for example.
The case for 16 and 17 year old voting is that it helps form a habit that raises overall participation in time. I’m still not really in favour, but it’s a good argument.
Good morning from New York. I can’t get my head around the precise details of the super-injunction, but the settled opinion of politically aware (and impeccably liberal, obvs) people I know here is that Britain is where free speech goes to die.
The super-injunction(s), the proscription of PA under Anti-Terrorism laws, the punitive imprisonment of Lucy Connolly, the libel laws, and even the dismissal of John Torode are all symptoms of a country that has taken the wrong path.
Are these poltically aware people you know in the States aware that free speech is also dying on its arse in the US when papers like WaPo are bought by billionaires and their editorial lines are compromised, where half the population watches news that’s idea of free speech is just flat out lies? Where the president of the land of free speech bans reporters from multiple publications from the seat of power for having the wrong views so only the right questions can be asked and broadcast?
Like with the NYT and it’s Brexit Britain obsession, there seem to be a lot of very arrogant superior Americans (hey, we might have locked up Lucy Connolly, just not in El Salvador or Eswatini) who would be best focussing on their country’s absolute clown show and problems rather than ours. Do pass this on to them. Thanks.
Prickly whataboutery doesn’t mitigate the actual issue in the UK. The aim is not to hold up the US as any kind of model, but rather to tell you what the UK looks like from the outside.
What's the Gardenwalker line on the Epstein Files debacle?
I’m not sure what to think of the politics.
As for Epstein himself, the evidence of the video editing strongly suggests he was murdered.
I’m just bored of supporting Ukraine. They never do anything. Just stupid drones and stuff. Their flag is ridiculous - wheat and sky? That’s like us having treacle pudding under a cloud
Also their spelling is dumb. Odesa with one S. Fuck that
GO PUTIN
Russia also does stupid drones. And pronounces Russia with three syllables. And their flag looks a bit French.
The flag is a feature, not a bug.
Peter the Great was so impressed by Dutch naval power that he took their flag for his own fledging navy (with the stripes reversed), from which it went on to represent Russia as a whole. And where did the French get their flag? Also from the Dutch, but with the stripes reoriented. as a recognised symbol of the transition from monarchy to republic.
I’m just bored of supporting Ukraine. They never do anything. Just stupid drones and stuff. Their flag is ridiculous - wheat and sky? That’s like us having treacle pudding under a cloud
Also their spelling is dumb. Odesa with one S. Fuck that
GO PUTIN
Russia also does stupid drones. And pronounces Russia with three syllables. And their flag looks a bit French.
The flag is a feature, not a bug.
Peter the Great was so impressed by Dutch naval power that he took their flag for his own fledging navy (with the stripes reversed), from which it went on to represent Russia as a whole. And where did the French get their flag? Also from the Dutch, but with the stripes reoriented. as a recognised symbol of the transition from monarchy to republic.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
If they were banned on the same basis under wartime powers that would be a more justifiable thing than banning them under terrorism legislation. As it is it's dangerous scope creep of powers that should have remained annually renewed by Parliament, rather than an indefinite part of statute law.
There seems to be a misunderstanding that all groups put on the proscribed list are basically ISIS or the IRA. There is Hizbut Tahrir who are avowed non-violent. There are far right extremist groups on there that have never carried at a "terrorist attack".
Then there are the groups whose actions undoubtedly do constitute terrorism but who are mysteriously absent from the list of proscribed organisations, such as the Israeli settler movement.
I think that's because their actions are not directed at the UK or people in the UK.
There seem to be plenty of other organisations on the list with no particular animosity towards the UK. ETA, for example.
I presume it is because in the past ETA worked with the IRA e.g. they transferred weapons.
I believe there was a British army unit based in Spain for years tracking their combined activities.
I’m just bored of supporting Ukraine. They never do anything. Just stupid drones and stuff. Their flag is ridiculous - wheat and sky? That’s like us having treacle pudding under a cloud
Also their spelling is dumb. Odesa with one S. Fuck that
GO PUTIN
Russia also does stupid drones. And pronounces Russia with three syllables. And their flag looks a bit French.
The flag is a feature, not a bug.
Peter the Great was so impressed by Dutch naval power that he took their flag for his own fledging navy (with the stripes reversed), from which it went on to represent Russia as a whole. And where did the French get their flag? Also from the Dutch, but with the stripes reoriented. as a recognised symbol of the transition from monarchy to republic.
I’m just bored of supporting Ukraine. They never do anything. Just stupid drones and stuff. Their flag is ridiculous - wheat and sky? That’s like us having treacle pudding under a cloud
Also their spelling is dumb. Odesa with one S. Fuck that
GO PUTIN
Russia also does stupid drones. And pronounces Russia with three syllables. And their flag looks a bit French.
The flag is a feature, not a bug.
Peter the Great was so impressed by Dutch naval power that he took their flag for his own fledging navy (with the stripes reversed), from which it went on to represent Russia as a whole. And where did the French get their flag? Also from the Dutch, but with the stripes reoriented. as a recognised symbol of the transition from monarchy to republic.
Britain MUST be radical in its electoral reform. • A NZ style (part proportional) electoral system • Compulsory voting • Citizens Assemblies • Local Mayors with real financial powers • An appointed upper house of real credibility and quality Our model of representative democracy is BROKEN - just letting 16 year olds join the mess will not fix it.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
If they were banned on the same basis under wartime powers that would be a more justifiable thing than banning them under terrorism legislation. As it is it's dangerous scope creep of powers that should have remained annually renewed by Parliament, rather than an indefinite part of statute law.
There seems to be a misunderstanding that all groups put on the proscribed list are basically ISIS or the IRA. There is Hizbut Tahrir who are avowed non-violent. There are far right extremist groups on there that have never carried at a "terrorist attack".
Then there are the groups whose actions undoubtedly do constitute terrorism but who are mysteriously absent from the list of proscribed organisations, such as the Israeli settler movement.
I think that's because their actions are not directed at the UK or people in the UK.
There seem to be plenty of other organisations on the list with no particular animosity towards the UK. ETA, for example.
I presume it is because in the past ETA worked with the IRA e.g. they transferred weapons.
I believe there was a British army unit based in Spain for years tracking their combined activities.
What about the Tamil Tigers? What is their beef with the UK?
The case for 16 and 17 year old voting is that it helps form a habit that raises overall participation in time. I’m still not really in favour, but it’s a good argument.
Good morning from New York. I can’t get my head around the precise details of the super-injunction, but the settled opinion of politically aware (and impeccably liberal, obvs) people I know here is that Britain is where free speech goes to die.
The super-injunction(s), the proscription of PA under Anti-Terrorism laws, the punitive imprisonment of Lucy Connolly, the libel laws, and even the dismissal of John Torode are all symptoms of a country that has taken the wrong path.
Are these poltically aware people you know in the States aware that free speech is also dying on its arse in the US when papers like WaPo are bought by billionaires and their editorial lines are compromised, where half the population watches news that’s idea of free speech is just flat out lies? Where the president of the land of free speech bans reporters from multiple publications from the seat of power for having the wrong views so only the right questions can be asked and broadcast?
Like with the NYT and it’s Brexit Britain obsession, there seem to be a lot of very arrogant superior Americans (hey, we might have locked up Lucy Connolly, just not in El Salvador or Eswatini) who would be best focussing on their country’s absolute clown show and problems rather than ours. Do pass this on to them. Thanks.
Prickly whataboutery doesn’t mitigate the actual issue in the UK. The aim is not to hold up the US as any kind of model, but rather to tell you what the UK looks like from the outside.
Are effete New Yorkers aware of how America looks from the outside?
In my experience, Yes. Liberal Americans I meet on my travels go out of their way to express agonised anti-Trump sentiments, to show they are "on the right side". They also look more furtive and bashful than I have seen before
Nobody here thinks the US is in a good place. It’s deeply troubling, and darker still than whatever ails Britain.
But the US system is still federal, and individual states and municipalities retain decent power. That’s not the case in the UK, where authority outside of Westminster hasn’t really been a thing since at least the 1940s.
Actually I disagree, I think America and Britain are equally fucked, and hurtling towards darkness, just in very different ways
The case for 16 and 17 year old voting is that it helps form a habit that raises overall participation in time. I’m still not really in favour, but it’s a good argument.
Good morning from New York. I can’t get my head around the precise details of the super-injunction, but the settled opinion of politically aware (and impeccably liberal, obvs) people I know here is that Britain is where free speech goes to die.
The super-injunction(s), the proscription of PA under Anti-Terrorism laws, the punitive imprisonment of Lucy Connolly, the libel laws, and even the dismissal of John Torode are all symptoms of a country that has taken the wrong path.
Are these poltically aware people you know in the States aware that free speech is also dying on its arse in the US when papers like WaPo are bought by billionaires and their editorial lines are compromised, where half the population watches news that’s idea of free speech is just flat out lies? Where the president of the land of free speech bans reporters from multiple publications from the seat of power for having the wrong views so only the right questions can be asked and broadcast?
Like with the NYT and it’s Brexit Britain obsession, there seem to be a lot of very arrogant superior Americans (hey, we might have locked up Lucy Connolly, just not in El Salvador or Eswatini) who would be best focussing on their country’s absolute clown show and problems rather than ours. Do pass this on to them. Thanks.
Prickly whataboutery doesn’t mitigate the actual issue in the UK. The aim is not to hold up the US as any kind of model, but rather to tell you what the UK looks like from the outside.
Are effete New Yorkers aware of how America looks from the outside?
In my experience, Yes. Liberal Americans I meet on my travels go out of their way to express agonised anti-Trump sentiments, to show they are "on the right side". They also look more furtive and bashful than I have seen before
Nobody here thinks the US is in a good place. It’s deeply troubling, and darker still than whatever ails Britain.
But the US system is still federal, and individual states and municipalities retain decent power. That’s not the case in the UK, where authority outside of Westminster hasn’t really been a thing since at least the 1940s.
Holyrood, Stormont, the Senedd, powerful Mayors, a Supreme Court. Westminster is certainly less dominant than it was even with Brexit
Countries and territories where young people aged 16 and/or 17 are allowed to vote in all elections include:
Argentina Austria Brazil Ecuador Guernsey Greece Indonesia Isle of Man Jersey Nicaragua Timor-Leste
And it hasn’t remotely improved our politics or the elected politicians, most people would say they’ve got markedly worse.
Britain was undeniably more successful when fewer people could vote*, let’s go back to move forwards.
*6 year old chimney sweeps might disagree.
Reading the early 19thC Parliamentary debate records, where a succession of aristos explain at length why it's essential to keep on sending kids to their death up chimneys, is quite eye opening.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
If they were banned on the same basis under wartime powers that would be a more justifiable thing than banning them under terrorism legislation. As it is it's dangerous scope creep of powers that should have remained annually renewed by Parliament, rather than an indefinite part of statute law.
There seems to be a misunderstanding that all groups put on the proscribed list are basically ISIS or the IRA. There is Hizbut Tahrir who are avowed non-violent. There are far right extremist groups on there that have never carried at a "terrorist attack".
Then there are the groups whose actions undoubtedly do constitute terrorism but who are mysteriously absent from the list of proscribed organisations, such as the Israeli settler movement.
I think that's because their actions are not directed at the UK or people in the UK.
There seem to be plenty of other organisations on the list with no particular animosity towards the UK. ETA, for example.
I presume it is because in the past ETA worked with the IRA e.g. they transferred weapons.
I believe there was a British army unit based in Spain for years tracking their combined activities.
What about the Tamil Tigers? What is their beef with the UK?
The fact they don't even exist anymore, it is bizarre why they are on there.
This whole proscribed list thing was a Blair creation and it is very inconsistent.
The case for 16 and 17 year old voting is that it helps form a habit that raises overall participation in time. I’m still not really in favour, but it’s a good argument.
Good morning from New York. I can’t get my head around the precise details of the super-injunction, but the settled opinion of politically aware (and impeccably liberal, obvs) people I know here is that Britain is where free speech goes to die.
The super-injunction(s), the proscription of PA under Anti-Terrorism laws, the punitive imprisonment of Lucy Connolly, the libel laws, and even the dismissal of John Torode are all symptoms of a country that has taken the wrong path.
There are even subjects we can’t discuss here, which is on one hand is a reasonable editorial decision, but on the other, mirrors the generally repressive approach toward dissent against “right-thinking” in the UK.
Richard Osman has claimed that John Tordoe was a) given the option to go on an anti-racist course, which he told them to f##k off and b) that the Sunday papers have further stories about him. The claims of him saying something racist was the only occurrence they felt legally able to stand up. Him saying that felt very much like he was doing the bidding of the BBC / the production company.
In these cases of "they said some racist", I want to know what they said, as there is racist and there is racist and context is important. If the further stories is he was at times that the "talent" was grumpy arrogant sod, again I don't give a shit, that is not the same as come into my hotel room and getting your wang out.
Anyone can label anybody “racist”. It’s a modern-day “I saw Goody Proctor with the devil”.
I am very suspicious when it is never made clear was exactly was said. It has alarm bells ringing that it was nowhere near as serious as what most normal people think of as racist behaviour.
Even a fair bit of the claims against Gregg Wallace weren't that bad, a lot of people people saying well I didn't find his joke funny, I was offended. But it was the shear weight of claims, the fact he was warned and carried on, and of course him regularly exposing himself.
As far as I'm concerned, if I'd been involved in management there and learned he'd exposed himself, once would have been a formal warning, and twice would have meant off the site. Revolting behaviour.
The case for 16 and 17 year old voting is that it helps form a habit that raises overall participation in time. I’m still not really in favour, but it’s a good argument.
Good morning from New York. I can’t get my head around the precise details of the super-injunction, but the settled opinion of politically aware (and impeccably liberal, obvs) people I know here is that Britain is where free speech goes to die.
The super-injunction(s), the proscription of PA under Anti-Terrorism laws, the punitive imprisonment of Lucy Connolly, the libel laws, and even the dismissal of John Torode are all symptoms of a country that has taken the wrong path.
Are these poltically aware people you know in the States aware that free speech is also dying on its arse in the US when papers like WaPo are bought by billionaires and their editorial lines are compromised, where half the population watches news that’s idea of free speech is just flat out lies? Where the president of the land of free speech bans reporters from multiple publications from the seat of power for having the wrong views so only the right questions can be asked and broadcast?
Like with the NYT and it’s Brexit Britain obsession, there seem to be a lot of very arrogant superior Americans (hey, we might have locked up Lucy Connolly, just not in El Salvador or Eswatini) who would be best focussing on their country’s absolute clown show and problems rather than ours. Do pass this on to them. Thanks.
Prickly whataboutery doesn’t mitigate the actual issue in the UK. The aim is not to hold up the US as any kind of model, but rather to tell you what the UK looks like from the outside.
What's the Gardenwalker line on the Epstein Files debacle?
I’m not sure what to think of the politics.
As for Epstein himself, the evidence of the video editing strongly suggests he was murdered.
I agree with that. What is much more extraordinary is that the head of the FBI seemed to think that this deeply edited video "proved" that it was suicide. Surely the FBI could examine the metadata as well as anyone else?
I am not one for conspiracy theories but they look complicit.
Britain MUST be radical in its electoral reform. • A NZ style (part proportional) electoral system • Compulsory voting • Citizens Assemblies • Local Mayors with real financial powers • An appointed upper house of real credibility and quality Our model of representative democracy is BROKEN - just letting 16 year olds join the mess will not fix it.
Whilst I have long held the view that working pensioners should pay NI, I would also comment that most pensioners are tax payers and as such are entitled to vote
Indeed I not sure why anyone would think otherwise, and to be fair apart from @BartholomewRoberts I haven't heard anyone else suggest they shouldn't
I’m just bored of supporting Ukraine. They never do anything. Just stupid drones and stuff. Their flag is ridiculous - wheat and sky? That’s like us having treacle pudding under a cloud
Also their spelling is dumb. Odesa with one S. Fuck that
GO PUTIN
Russia also does stupid drones. And pronounces Russia with three syllables. And their flag looks a bit French.
The flag is a feature, not a bug.
Peter the Great was so impressed by Dutch naval power that he took their flag for his own fledging navy (with the stripes reversed), from which it went on to represent Russia as a whole. And where did the French get their flag? Also from the Dutch, but with the stripes reoriented. as a recognised symbol of the transition from monarchy to republic.
I’m just bored of supporting Ukraine. They never do anything. Just stupid drones and stuff. Their flag is ridiculous - wheat and sky? That’s like us having treacle pudding under a cloud
Also their spelling is dumb. Odesa with one S. Fuck that
GO PUTIN
Russia also does stupid drones. And pronounces Russia with three syllables. And their flag looks a bit French.
The flag is a feature, not a bug.
Peter the Great was so impressed by Dutch naval power that he took their flag for his own fledging navy (with the stripes reversed), from which it went on to represent Russia as a whole. And where did the French get their flag? Also from the Dutch, but with the stripes reoriented. as a recognised symbol of the transition from monarchy to republic.
All tricolours are boring.
Ireland stole its colours from India.
Ireland's flag was a gift from the French, I believe, and predates Indian usage of a similar flag.
Years ago, in the state of Illinois, women could drink at 18, but men had to wait until they were 21. (Which makes sense, sort of, since women tend to grow up sooner than men.)
Britain MUST be radical in its electoral reform. • A NZ style (part proportional) electoral system • Compulsory voting • Citizens Assemblies • Local Mayors with real financial powers • An appointed upper house of real credibility and quality Our model of representative democracy is BROKEN - just letting 16 year olds join the mess will not fix it.
I agree with nearly of this.
And I have for years and years.
I even said that if Brexit was to be successful, it should be conceived of as a democratic upgrade, but it seems no actual politicians were listening (or reading me on here).
By the way, NZ is fully proportional, at least in turns of how how the vote translates into seats in Parliament. I don’t like the existence of list MPs, who tend to be apparatchiks whose “face fits”, usually for all the wrong reasons.
I would prefer that a party’s seat allocation was “topped up” by drawing on “first losers”, ie those who came closest to winning an actual seat.
Years ago, in the state of Illinois, women could drink at 18, but men had to wait until they were 21. (Which makes sense, sort of, since women tend to grow up sooner than men.)
How on earth can it take 10 years to start running a through train from the UK to Germany?
And somehow this is being celebrated.
Starmer is horribly bad at every single aspect of politics. Strategic, tactical, retail. He cannot orate and he has zero ideas, he doesn't understand party management and he is a terrlble negotiator, his charisma is negative and he's awful on TV
Setting aside Liz Truss (as being sui generis) he is without question the worst prime minister of my lifetime - in terms of the skillset he brings to the job. He has NO skillset
The case for 16 and 17 year old voting is that it helps form a habit that raises overall participation in time. I’m still not really in favour, but it’s a good argument.
Good morning from New York. I can’t get my head around the precise details of the super-injunction, but the settled opinion of politically aware (and impeccably liberal, obvs) people I know here is that Britain is where free speech goes to die.
The super-injunction(s), the proscription of PA under Anti-Terrorism laws, the punitive imprisonment of Lucy Connolly, the libel laws, and even the dismissal of John Torode are all symptoms of a country that has taken the wrong path.
There are even subjects we can’t discuss here, which is on one hand is a reasonable editorial decision, but on the other, mirrors the generally repressive approach toward dissent against “right-thinking” in the UK.
Richard Osman has claimed that John Tordoe was a) given the option to go on an anti-racist course, which he told them to f##k off and b) that the Sunday papers have further stories about him. The claims of him saying something racist was the only occurrence they felt legally able to stand up. Him saying that felt very much like he was doing the bidding of the BBC / the production company.
In these cases of "they said some racist", I want to know what they said, as there is racist and there is racist and context is important. If the further stories is he was at times that the "talent" was grumpy arrogant sod, again I don't give a shit, that is not the same as come into my hotel room and getting your wang out.
Anyone can label anybody “racist”. It’s a modern-day “I saw Goody Proctor with the devil”.
I am very suspicious when it is never made clear was exactly was said. It has alarm bells ringing that it was nowhere near as serious as what most normal people think of as racist behaviour.
Even a fair bit of the claims against Gregg Wallace weren't that bad, a lot of people people saying well I didn't find his joke funny, I was offended. But it was the shear weight of claims, the fact he was warned and carried on, and of course him regularly exposing himself.
As far as I'm concerned, if I'd been involved in management there and learned he'd exposed himself, once would have been a formal warning, and twice would have meant off the site. Revolting behaviour.
Richard Osman on The Rest is Entertainment described it as the ‘worst’ racial slur, from which we can probably guess.
As for Gregg Wallace, all bar one of the upheld complaints come from before 2018. In 2017 he was officially hauled over the coals, and so it does look like he has effectively cleaned up his act as a result, in which case he might justifiably feel aggrieved.
That said, taking the broader picture, Nadiya Hussain has just had her cookery programme cancelled and she's accused of nothing.
I think sometimes television presenters are like MPs who lose their seats at an election. They should remember it is a privilege, not a right, even if that privilege has been taken away arbitrarily.
Countries and territories where young people aged 16 and/or 17 are allowed to vote in all elections include:
Argentina Austria Brazil Ecuador Guernsey Greece Indonesia Isle of Man Jersey Nicaragua Timor-Leste
And it hasn’t remotely improved our politics or the elected politicians, most people would say they’ve got markedly worse.
Britain was undeniably more successful when fewer people could vote*, let’s go back to move forwards.
*6 year old chimney sweeps might disagree.
Reading the early 19thC Parliamentary debate records, where a succession of aristos explain at length why it's essential to keep on sending kids to their death up chimneys, is quite eye opening.
In medieval times, one of the kings (I forget which) ordered somebody to be boiled to death for the crime of poisoning. A horrible and unconscionably cruel act. The execution took place, and for some centuries various legal luminaries discussed it calmly in the court discussions of the day. It's a horrible world when you think of it.
Ooooh, more leak revelations. Looks like someone has unhidden some tabs on excel and it turns out the whole of the special forces and MI6 was on it.
If the location of the animals left behind by Operation Ark is leaked then (dog) shit will hit the fan. Nothing like a Cockapoo in danger to fire up the Facebook outrage machine.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
If they were banned on the same basis under wartime powers that would be a more justifiable thing than banning them under terrorism legislation. As it is it's dangerous scope creep of powers that should have remained annually renewed by Parliament, rather than an indefinite part of statute law.
There seems to be a misunderstanding that all groups put on the proscribed list are basically ISIS or the IRA. There is Hizbut Tahrir who are avowed non-violent. There are far right extremist groups on there that have never carried at a "terrorist attack".
Then there are the groups whose actions undoubtedly do constitute terrorism but who are mysteriously absent from the list of proscribed organisations, such as the Israeli settler movement.
I think that's because their actions are not directed at the UK or people in the UK.
There seem to be plenty of other organisations on the list with no particular animosity towards the UK. ETA, for example.
ETA did cooperate with the IRA, which can be seen as some animosity towards the UK, but point taken.
On a lighter note: A bear was sighted in Redmond, a small agricultural community near me that some of you may have heard of. The bear visited city hall, and then went for a swim.
(I have long thought that the UK needs more wild animals; bears might be a bit much to start with, but restoring Alces alces might be work well.)
It's interesting to consider though. Was it the right choice?
Would it have been better to use the resources sent to the USSR to make faster progress on the Western Front? Might then more of Europe have ended the war free of Nazi *and* Soviet occupation?
I can't help feel that helping the enemy of one's enemy, while tempting in the short term, often ends up creating more problems later.
It might not have made any difference. There is something called the 'ratchet mechanism', which is more than just a financial tool.
Had the US and UK not bothered with aid, but instead used said capacity to hit Germany harder in the west, then Germany would've pulled troops from the east in order to defend the west more.....
And so you end up in the same situation in 1945 that you did anyway.
Neat argument.
The problem with that argument is that it relies of a belief that the Soviet Union would have succeeded without the aid, which was very substantial.
We even invaded Iraq in cooperation with the SU to create a safe alternative route.
It's interesting to consider though. Was it the right choice?
Would it have been better to use the resources sent to the USSR to make faster progress on the Western Front? Might then more of Europe have ended the war free of Nazi *and* Soviet occupation?
I can't help feel that helping the enemy of one's enemy, while tempting in the short term, often ends up creating more problems later.
It might not have made any difference. There is something called the 'ratchet mechanism', which is more than just a financial tool.
Had the US and UK not bothered with aid, but instead used said capacity to hit Germany harder in the west, then Germany would've pulled troops from the east in order to defend the west more.....
And so you end up in the same situation in 1945 that you did anyway.
Neat argument.
The problem with that argument is that it relies of a belief that the Soviet Union would have succeeded without the aid, which was very substantial.
We even invaded Iraq in cooperation with the SU to create a safe alternative route.
Just a reminder about what local by-elections we have today. There is a Con defence in Denbighshire and a double defence in Dartford. Labour are defending in Basildon and Neath Port Talbot. There are single defences for Lib Dems in Harborough, Green in Liverpool, and PC in Rhondda Cynon Taf. Finally we have another Reform defence - this time in Staffordshire.
Sam Journet the Reform Basildon candidate has some ... interesting ... social media history, like so many of them.
It's some time ago but involved stuff around "retard", "little monkey", LOL-ing when a British soldier was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan ... just the usual run of the mill stuff.
I've no idea whether it will cut through. RefUK are refusing to say a word.
I’m just bored of supporting Ukraine. They never do anything. Just stupid drones and stuff. Their flag is ridiculous - wheat and sky? That’s like us having treacle pudding under a cloud
Also their spelling is dumb. Odesa with one S. Fuck that
GO PUTIN
The Ukraine flag is designed to be difficult for thickwits to hang upside down.
It's how the RN used to tell whether someone had too much rum taken - allegedly.
Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?
Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.
If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.
IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.
Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you
Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.
Since we’re not officially at war with Russia, more like 1938. Of course in 1940 we’d gone to war to defend Poland which by that time was well carved up by AH and one of Putin’s direct antecedents, Stalin. Still, only another few months in the hall of mirrors before the USSR became our brave and honourable ally.
Did anyone in power actually think Stalin or Russia were 'honourable' during the war ?
It'd be interesting to know, as stuff I've read - mostly written after the war - paints the picture of aiding Russia after Barbarossa being the least-worst of a series of bad options.
It's interesting to consider though. Was it the right choice?
Would it have been better to use the resources sent to the USSR to make faster progress on the Western Front? Might then more of Europe have ended the war free of Nazi *and* Soviet occupation?
I can't help feel that helping the enemy of one's enemy, while tempting in the short term, often ends up creating more problems later.
It's an interesting question. The Russophile line seems to be that they did not need western aid in WW2, and it made no difference. Whilst the US/UK aid (and vast amounts came from the UK) was that the aid made a massive difference to Russian successes in the east.
I'm firmly in the latter view, and think that our aid helped Russia massively and, even if it did not stop their defeat, it shortened the war considerably. But I am biased, as I understand my granddad served on ships sailing to Russia.
Could Hitler have defeated Russia without our aid to the defenders? Perhaps; it was a close-run thing. But even if not, our aid allowed Russia to progress faster in the east during their offensives, and that blood that cost them saved our own blood.
As with all historical counter-factuals, we cannot go back and run the experiment again. Buy allying with Russia did make sense at the time, even when we knew Stalin's capacity for back-stabbing, treachery and genocide.
Interestingly, I recently read a book stating that both the US and UK stopped spying on Russia after Barbarossa, as we were desperate to keep Stalin on-side. Whilst Stalin redoubled efforts to spy on us, his allies.
JJ - I'm interested that your Grandad worked on ships sailing to Russia, because my great uncle flew RAF planes accompanying such ships - but I know little more than that. Presumably your Grandad was sailing to Arctic Ocean ports? Do you know which ones, and at what point in the war?
No. We know he was in DEMS (Defensive Equipped Merchant Ships), and he once talked of sailing out on a ship in a convoy until it was out of German air threat, then taking a bosun's chair with his gun onto a merchant ship going the other way. Hence he sat sail to America many times, but never arrived there. The ships had gun mounts welded onto them, but there were not enough guns or crew, causing the mid-Atlantic swaps.
He did mention the Russian convoys a couple of times, but I have no idea where he was heading. I do have a picture somewhere of him in his thirties, looking identical to me at that age, on a ship covered in ice. He also talked of having to break ice of the ship because the weight was affecting stability. The Russian convoys would have required air cover, but I've no idea if DEMS operated them.
He also mentioned seeing ships either side of his in convoy being sunk, something that upset him. Because he was a mathematician he got stationed on land, where *allegedly* he was involved with writing instructions for ships' captains for D-Day. He did not go home for weeks beforehand, as he knew many of the details. I have zero evidence of that, but it is family legend. One ship he was on got sunk shortly after he was transferred.
I wish I'd talked to him more about it, but he was reticent. Understandably so.
Murmansk would presumably have been the Russian destination ? It was the go to port for European supplies to Russia, since WWI.
And Archangel which was further into the White Sea but further from the Finnish border.
Like JJ, my grandfather was on the convoys. He was in the RN and served on the Atlantic, Malta and Russian convoys at various times but mostly on light cruisers. Shipwrecked 3 times but thankfiully never on the Arctic convoys. He died in 1975 and my Grandmother finally got his Arctic Star in 2012, just before she died. A few years ago I was looking through the IWM website and came across a photo of him I had never known about from his time on HMS Hermione.
He is the chap in the middle with the glasses.
As it happens, I am just taking a break from driving, at the site of the Narvik landings in 1940. Photo tomorrow, as I have had mine for today. Still sunny, and even warmer: 23C here today - but there are a few showers off to the north; some rain would be a novelty.
If you look in the right place, there are still the remains of a couple of landings by (what was left of) German destroyers. The wreck of the Georg Thiele is party above water. A dog would be required for scale.
Comments
But, now, it suffices me well to take both my amusement and inspiration from the one who has become the great war hero son of that city.
Blair
Brown
Cameron
May
Johnson
Sunak
Starmer
I've left Truss off the list as she never hit a GE, but it was certainly the 'grown ups' who elected her leader of the Tories.
Bethnal Green and Stepney
Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North
Birmingham Ladywood
Birmingham Yardley
Bradford West
Ilford North
Rochdale
Top 10 constituencies with the most 16-17 year olds in England and Wales:
Birmingham Ladywood
Bradford West
Bradford East
Birmingham Perry Barr
Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North
Barking
Ilford South
Edmonton and Winchmore Hill
East Ham
Enfield North
Basildon is in the Bas/Billy seat - should be Ref gain but the candidate has a history of 'colourful' social media posts
Dartford - one an easy Ref gain, the other the Tories might hold on to but i fancy 2 x Ref gain
Staffordshire - if it follows the pattern of the two other Ref defences then Con gain possible as only a few votes in it in May
Denbighshire - Cons best remaining part of Wales so perhaps Con hold?
Port Talbot - Ref gain
Harborough LD hold
Green and PC holds just because green is a nice colour
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/MOD-Judgment-No-4-final.pdf
Argentina
Austria
Brazil
Ecuador
Guernsey
Greece
Indonesia
Isle of Man
Jersey
Nicaragua
Timor-Leste
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/southkorea/environment-animals/20250717/south-chungcheong-province-reels-from-once-in-a-century-rainfall
In fact, James Giles who came second in Hodge Hill is very heavily involved with the Magic Grandpa 4
Combining the two, surely most 16-year-olds will have neither bank cards nor driving licences.
I’m still not really in favour, but it’s a good argument.
Good morning from New York.
I can’t get my head around the precise details of the super-injunction, but the settled opinion of politically aware (and impeccably liberal, obvs) people I know here is that Britain is where free speech goes to die.
The super-injunction(s), the proscription of PA under Anti-Terrorism laws, the punitive imprisonment of Lucy Connolly, the libel laws, and even the dismissal of John Torode are all symptoms of a country that has taken the wrong path.
There are even subjects we can’t discuss here, which is on one hand is a reasonable editorial decision, but on the other, mirrors the generally repressive approach toward dissent against “right-thinking” in the UK.
Britain was undeniably more successful when fewer people could vote*, let’s go back to move forwards.
*6 year old chimney sweeps might disagree.
In these cases of "they said some racist", I want to know what they said, as there is racist and there is racist and context is important. If the further stories is he was at times that the "talent" was grumpy arrogant sod, again I don't give a shit, that is not the same as come into my hotel room and getting your wang out.
Peter the Great was so impressed by Dutch naval power that he took their flag for his own fledging navy (with the stripes reversed), from which it went on to represent Russia as a whole. And where did the French get their flag? Also from the Dutch, but with the stripes reoriented. as a recognised symbol of the transition from monarchy to republic.
Like with the NYT and it’s Brexit Britain obsession, there seem to be a lot of very arrogant superior Americans (hey, we might have locked up Lucy Connolly, just not in El Salvador or Eswatini) who would be best focussing on their country’s absolute clown show and problems rather than ours. Do pass this on to them. Thanks.
Pathetic stuff.
We CANNOT have a debt crisis as we print our own currency, and 99.5% of UK government debt is denominated in it. The increase in interest rates is caused as much by pre-announced quantitative tightening as it is by any market issues.
We CAN have a currency crisis but, well, the currency falls a bit. Big deal. It fell by about 15% when we voted to leave the EU and nobody apart from a few importers and holiday makers noticed much. Anyway, there's not much sign of one - the trade weighted index is up about 12% in the last three years.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/bk67/mret
In many ways, it would be easier if we were to have an acute crisis, like France in 1983. It would force Milei-like reforms. But our main issue is medium-term stagnation, which is much more difficult to muster the political will to deal with. So we'll probably just go on drifting for the next few years - more likely because the French and the Germans are doing just as bad, or even worse.
It’s a modern-day “I saw Goody Proctor with the devil”.
The far right groups seem to get proscribed because they spread racist / conspiracy theory stuff on social media to whip up the mob. The thinking is proscribing them stops their supporters spreading this stuff. I am not sure that it works and also this threat is massively overstated e.g. even the riots that Starmer banged on about being far right riots and the police claiming it was far right groups organising them, just wasn't true. The terrorist "far right" is very small with experts suggest there are 10s of people under security service observation as those who might undertake a an attack rather than being a keyboard warrior.
Even a fair bit of the claims against Gregg Wallace weren't that bad, a lot of people people saying well I didn't find his joke funny, I was offended. But it was the shear weight of claims, the fact he was warned and carried on, and of course him regularly exposing himself.
We will likely see major civil disorder within 5 years. However, so might America and half the West
The times they are a-troublin'
In my experience, Yes. Liberal Americans I meet on my travels go out of their way to express agonised anti-Trump sentiments, to show they are "on the right side". They also look more furtive and bashful than I have seen before
We (liberal democracies) simply appear supine in the face of tech-induced political disintegration.
Its not like the old days where you need to physically meet up in a location and leads to much more organisational structure to get things done.
It’s deeply troubling, and darker still than whatever ails Britain.
But the US system is still federal, and individual states and municipalities retain decent power. That’s not the case in the UK, where authority outside of Westminster hasn’t really been a thing since at least the 1940s.
As for Epstein himself, the evidence of the video editing strongly suggests he was murdered.
I believe there was a British army unit based in Spain for years tracking their combined activities.
https://x.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1945820145416376524
Britain MUST be radical in its electoral reform.
• A NZ style (part proportional) electoral system
• Compulsory voting
• Citizens Assemblies
• Local Mayors with real financial powers
• An appointed upper house of real credibility and quality
Our model of representative democracy is BROKEN - just letting 16 year olds join the mess will not fix it.
"Several injured after Gaza City church struck, patriarchate says - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8xvnlpx2dxo
And sadly this repeats across the developed world
And somehow this is being celebrated.
This whole proscribed list thing was a Blair creation and it is very inconsistent.
Revolting behaviour.
I am not one for conspiracy theories but they look complicit.
Whilst I have long held the view that working pensioners should pay NI, I would also comment that most pensioners are tax payers and as such are entitled to vote
Indeed I not sure why anyone would think otherwise, and to be fair apart from @BartholomewRoberts I haven't heard anyone else suggest they shouldn't
Oh well. God obviously ain't bothered
Indeed the way Starmer is going, especially with his own colleagues, he may find he has real problems in the next few months
And I have for years and years.
I even said that if Brexit was to be successful, it should be conceived of as a democratic upgrade, but it seems no actual politicians were listening (or reading me on here).
By the way, NZ is fully proportional, at least in turns of how how the vote translates into seats in Parliament.
I don’t like the existence of list MPs, who tend to be apparatchiks whose “face fits”, usually for all the wrong reasons.
I would prefer that a party’s seat allocation was “topped up” by drawing on “first losers”, ie those who came closest to winning an actual seat.
Candy is dandy
But liquor is quicker.
"US tells Switzerland its order of Patriots will be delayed as Ukraine gets priority"
I've no doubt the altruistic Gnomes of Zurich will now feel they are doing their bit.
Setting aside Liz Truss (as being sui generis) he is without question the worst prime minister of my lifetime - in terms of the skillset he brings to the job. He has NO skillset
NEW THREAD
As for Gregg Wallace, all bar one of the upheld complaints come from before 2018. In 2017 he was officially hauled over the coals, and so it does look like he has effectively cleaned up his act as a result, in which case he might justifiably feel aggrieved.
That said, taking the broader picture, Nadiya Hussain has just had her cookery programme cancelled and she's accused of nothing.
I think sometimes television presenters are like MPs who lose their seats at an election. They should remember it is a privilege, not a right, even if that privilege has been taken away arbitrarily.
If the location of the animals left behind by Operation Ark is leaked then (dog) shit will hit the fan. Nothing like a Cockapoo in danger to fire up the Facebook outrage machine.
(I have long thought that the UK needs more wild animals; bears might be a bit much to start with, but restoring Alces alces might be work well.)
We even invaded Iraq in cooperation with the SU to create a safe alternative route.
We even invaded Iraq in cooperation with the SU to create a safe alternative route.
It's some time ago but involved stuff around "retard", "little monkey", LOL-ing when a British soldier was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan ... just the usual run of the mill stuff.
I've no idea whether it will cut through. RefUK are refusing to say a word.
https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/25313883.reform-uks-silence-basildon-candidates-facebook-posts/
(Though I am interested that Nigel Farage has just relaxed his world-beating vetting system, and invited the excluded ones to reapply.)
It's how the RN used to tell whether someone had too much rum taken - allegedly.
Here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/NgyrzP2MqnQ8PqZg9