For all those on here saying 16 and 17 year olds should not be allowed to vote because they do not possess the capacity to discern lies from facts can I throw a word into the pot? Brexit.
If lacking clarity and possessing an inability to assimilate facts from lies should deny a franchise, can I remind you all of those people who voted to leave the European Union due to their inability to assimilate facts from lies?
My conclusion? If 16 and 17 year olds are not up to the cognitive requirement for voting, should "Leave" voters also be removed from the electoral roll?
"People who disagree with me shouldn't get to vote" isn't necessarily the most compelling of democratic arguments.
For age, a line has to be drawn somewhere. The only disagreement is where.
Well yes that too.
But if the argument is if voters are incapable of making rational decisions I say fair enough. I also say voters voting to impose economic sanctions on themselves are incapable of making rational decisions, so should they be allowed to vote?
Your argument is "people who voted the "wrong" way on an issue that I feel passionately about shouldn't be allowed to vote."
I am not liking the new look Vanilla. I can't see to read your posts, which of course could be advantageous for me. Nether can I see to write posts, which is advantageous to you.
Am I right in thinking 16/17 year olds can have sex with MPs but cannot vote for them?
But they can't buy them a drink. Or marry them.
Its good that they are sober* enough to drive the MP home at 17.
*It is legal to buy them drinks, just not drink the drink themselves, unless cider accompanied by a meal etc.
There have always been different ages for different activities, so I find this a very poor argument against votes at 16.
Yes, apparently being 15 years old is no defence against being groomed into joining a terrorist organisation and having the citizenship of the country in which you were born removed.
The age of criminal responsibility is ten.
I hadn't realised that banishment without being tried for the crimes for which one is deemed responsible is now being applied to ten year olds.
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
Bit like head of BBC News not knowing the Hamas government and Hamas fighters are one and the same thing and both designated as terrorists.
I genuinely despair at the basic intellectual capabilities of those who govern us. From the prime minister and the chancellor down, the military, the civil servants, the judiciary
What if there is no vast conspiracy to ruin Britain, the simple fact is: they’re all morons?
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It must have felt a bit like this, being a politically-aware person in 5th century Rome, wondering how on earth you ended up being led by people who were wilfully incompetent.
On 16 and 17 year old’s voting, I think it’s very silly. Biologically, most 16 year old’s brains are more similar to a 14 year old’s than an 18 year old’s.
Especially boys. From memory, the male ability to estimate risk only matches that of a 13 year old girl when they hit 25.
RAISING the voting age to 25 for men (but not women) would have more science behind it.
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
Bit like head of BBC News not knowing the Hamas government and Hamas fighters are one and the same thing and both designated as terrorists.
I genuinely despair at the basic intellectual capabilities of those who govern us. From the prime minister and the chancellor down, the military, the civil servants, the judiciary
What if there is no vast conspiracy to ruin Britain, the simple fact is: they’re all morons?
Well at least nobody is stupid enough to stick the details of spies and special force members in an excel spreadsheet and email it around....
Am I right in thinking 16/17 year olds can have sex with MPs but cannot vote for them?
But they can't buy them a drink. Or marry them.
Its good that they are sober* enough to drive the MP home at 17.
*It is legal to buy them drinks, just not drink the drink themselves, unless cider accompanied by a meal etc.
There have always been different ages for different activities, so I find this a very poor argument against votes at 16.
Yes, apparently being 15 years old is no defence against being groomed into joining a terrorist organisation and having the citizenship of the country in which you were born removed.
The age of criminal responsibility is ten.
I hadn't realised that banishment without being tried for the crimes for which one is deemed responsible is now being applied to ten year olds.
That's tough. Actions ought to have consequences. The problem with our society is that all too often, they don't.
For all those on here saying 16 and 17 year olds should not be allowed to vote because they do not possess the capacity to discern lies from facts can I throw a word into the pot? Brexit.
If lacking clarity and possessing an inability to assimilate facts from lies should deny a franchise, can I remind you all of those people who voted to leave the European Union due to their inability to assimilate facts from lies?
My conclusion? If 16 and 17 year olds are not up to the cognitive requirement for voting, should "Leave" voters also be removed from the electoral roll?
"People who disagree with me shouldn't get to vote" isn't necessarily the most compelling of democratic arguments.
For age, a line has to be drawn somewhere. The only disagreement is where.
£200 pounds a year income at the time of the Putney debates is £42k a year now (Bank of England inflation calculator)
For all those on here saying 16 and 17 year olds should not be allowed to vote because they do not possess the capacity to discern lies from facts can I throw a word into the pot? Brexit.
If lacking clarity and possessing an inability to assimilate facts from lies should deny a franchise, can I remind you all of those people who voted to leave the European Union due to their inability to assimilate facts from lies?
My conclusion? If 16 and 17 year olds are not up to the cognitive requirement for voting, should "Leave" voters also be removed from the electoral roll?
"People who disagree with me shouldn't get to vote" isn't necessarily the most compelling of democratic arguments.
For age, a line has to be drawn somewhere. The only disagreement is where.
Well yes that too.
But if the argument is if voters are incapable of making rational decisions I say fair enough. I also say voters voting to impose economic sanctions on themselves are incapable of making rational decisions, so should they be allowed to vote?
Your argument is "people who voted the "wrong" way on an issue that I feel passionately about shouldn't be allowed to vote."
It's a pathetically weak argument.
My argument is by voting to sabotage their own economic interests in the Referendum they demonstrated a cognitive incompetence which should question whether they have the capacity to vote, and therefore should they be allowed to vote?
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It must have felt a bit like this, being a politically-aware person in 5th century Rome, wondering how on earth you ended up being led by people who were wilfully incompetent.
It’s a combination of a lack of curiosity and laziness. If you are ex head of SIS about to be interviewed about a subject, maybe mug up on the subject and check what you think is correct factually rather than just blagging it.
There was a minister being interviewed about something the other morning and she was asked about a major news story and she said she hadn’t read about it and didn’t know any info - it didn’t occur to Robinson or whoever was interviewing to say to her “you have come on probably the biggest daily political news programme and you claim not have knowledge of one of the biggest news stories of the day - did you not think, as a minister in the UK government it is important you should know the details?”.
Am I right in thinking 16/17 year olds can have sex with MPs but cannot vote for them?
But they can't buy them a drink. Or marry them.
Its good that they are sober* enough to drive the MP home at 17.
*It is legal to buy them drinks, just not drink the drink themselves, unless cider accompanied by a meal etc.
There have always been different ages for different activities, so I find this a very poor argument against votes at 16.
Yes, apparently being 15 years old is no defence against being groomed into joining a terrorist organisation and having the citizenship of the country in which you were born removed.
The age of criminal responsibility is ten.
Also, according to her statements, she carried on committing war crimes for a number of years.
She needs to be tried and sentenced. Personally, I would do it in this country. I do like the fumbling and the “but it wouldn’t be a fair trial” from Human Rights lot when this is suggested.
Am I right in thinking 16/17 year olds can have sex with MPs but cannot vote for them?
But they can't buy them a drink. Or marry them.
Its good that they are sober* enough to drive the MP home at 17.
*It is legal to buy them drinks, just not drink the drink themselves, unless cider accompanied by a meal etc.
There have always been different ages for different activities, so I find this a very poor argument against votes at 16.
Yes, apparently being 15 years old is no defence against being groomed into joining a terrorist organisation and having the citizenship of the country in which you were born removed.
The age of criminal responsibility is ten.
I hadn't realised that banishment without being tried for the crimes for which one is deemed responsible is now being applied to ten year olds.
That's tough. Actions ought to have consequences. The problem with our society is that all too often, they don't.
Yep, succesive UK governments with their customary lazy cowardice certainly avoided the consequence of trying one of their own citizens for alleged crimes.
'The Mail & the Tele won't like it, let's just leave it to the sand jockeys to deal with.'
Some of the reactions out there to votes at 16 have been hilarious. There is clearly a fear amongst the low-information voters that 16 year olds may be smarter than them. "They won't know what they are voting for" say the people who voted for brexit and then said "I didn't vote for that"
Ironically I think that one of the two parties who will do very well off this is Reform UK. The other is the Greens.
There needs to be a boundary between where you can and cannot vote (*). It therefore becomes a question of what age that boundary should sit. Some 16 year olds are wise beyond their years; others are low-information and/or naive. But the same can be said for 18 year olds, or even 50 year olds. Unless we set some form of test before voting, that is unavoidable.
So I ask you: why 16, and not 15? Or 14? Or 10? Why is setting the voting age at 18 wrong, and 16 right, but 14 wrong?
As for 'low-information': there are plenty of your fellow travelers on the left who are that as well...
(*) Unless you believe newborns should get the vote...
Why should newborns not have the vote when literally demented boomer millionaire pensioners can vote to keep their triple lock?
Because it would not be *their* vote. It would be their parent's vote.
Why not though?
We have a problem in this country (common in many others) with not enough children being born, partly - it seems - due to a lack of family-supportive policies. Why not multiply up parents' votes to address that?
I'm not sure how serious I am, but it would change the voter demographic somewhat. I could see shared tax allowances and transferred tax allowances for children happening and Scandinavian style childcare and parental leave...
Parents to transfer vote to their child as soon as they wish, but at latest by 16 (or 18, but I'm fine with 16 year olds having their own vote).
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
Bit like head of BBC News not knowing the Hamas government and Hamas fighters are one and the same thing and both designated as terrorists.
I genuinely despair at the basic intellectual capabilities of those who govern us. From the prime minister and the chancellor down, the military, the civil servants, the judiciary
What if there is no vast conspiracy to ruin Britain, the simple fact is: they’re all morons?
Not so much morons as deliberately educationally/intellectually ignorant.
That to reach the top you have to recite what are deemed the 'established' facts and beliefs and anyone asking questions is told to shut up.
For all those on here saying 16 and 17 year olds should not be allowed to vote because they do not possess the capacity to discern lies from facts can I throw a word into the pot? Brexit.
If lacking clarity and possessing an inability to assimilate facts from lies should deny a franchise, can I remind you all of those people who voted to leave the European Union due to their inability to assimilate facts from lies?
My conclusion? If 16 and 17 year olds are not up to the cognitive requirement for voting, should "Leave" voters also be removed from the electoral roll?
"People who disagree with me shouldn't get to vote" isn't necessarily the most compelling of democratic arguments.
For age, a line has to be drawn somewhere. The only disagreement is where.
Well yes that too.
But if the argument is if voters are incapable of making rational decisions I say fair enough. I also say voters voting to impose economic sanctions on themselves are incapable of making rational decisions, so should they be allowed to vote?
Your argument is "people who voted the "wrong" way on an issue that I feel passionately about shouldn't be allowed to vote."
It's a pathetically weak argument.
My argument is by voting to sabotage their own economic interests in the Referendum they demonstrated a cognitive incompetence which should question whether they have the capacity to vote, and therefore should they be allowed to vote?
So the fact that I rated some principles as more important than my personal wealth makes me an idiot?
I never had you pinned as a Thatcherite…..
It does also exclude a good chunk of socialists. I happen to disagree with them, but I don’t think they are idiots.
For all those on here saying 16 and 17 year olds should not be allowed to vote because they do not possess the capacity to discern lies from facts can I throw a word into the pot? Brexit.
If lacking clarity and possessing an inability to assimilate facts from lies should deny a franchise, can I remind you all of those people who voted to leave the European Union due to their inability to assimilate facts from lies?
My conclusion? If 16 and 17 year olds are not up to the cognitive requirement for voting, should "Leave" voters also be removed from the electoral roll?
"People who disagree with me shouldn't get to vote" isn't necessarily the most compelling of democratic arguments.
For age, a line has to be drawn somewhere. The only disagreement is where.
Well yes that too.
But if the argument is if voters are incapable of making rational decisions I say fair enough. I also say voters voting to impose economic sanctions on themselves are incapable of making rational decisions, so should they be allowed to vote?
Your argument is "people who voted the "wrong" way on an issue that I feel passionately about shouldn't be allowed to vote."
It's a pathetically weak argument.
My argument is by voting to sabotage their own economic interests in the Referendum they demonstrated a cognitive incompetence which should question whether they have the capacity to vote, and therefore should they be allowed to vote?
That's just you being endlessly bitter about an outcome that you dislike. Get over it. I've had to get over being on the losing end of political campaigns.
Am I right in thinking 16/17 year olds can have sex with MPs but cannot vote for them?
But they can't buy them a drink. Or marry them.
Its good that they are sober* enough to drive the MP home at 17.
*It is legal to buy them drinks, just not drink the drink themselves, unless cider accompanied by a meal etc.
There have always been different ages for different activities, so I find this a very poor argument against votes at 16.
Yes, apparently being 15 years old is no defence against being groomed into joining a terrorist organisation and having the citizenship of the country in which you were born removed.
The age of criminal responsibility is ten.
Also, according to her statements, she carried on committing war crimes for a number of years.
She needs to be tried and sentenced. Personally, I would do it in this country. I do like the fumbling and the “but it wouldn’t be a fair trial” from Human Rights lot when this is suggested.
For all those on here saying 16 and 17 year olds should not be allowed to vote because they do not possess the capacity to discern lies from facts can I throw a word into the pot? Brexit.
If lacking clarity and possessing an inability to assimilate facts from lies should deny a franchise, can I remind you all of those people who voted to leave the European Union due to their inability to assimilate facts from lies?
My conclusion? If 16 and 17 year olds are not up to the cognitive requirement for voting, should "Leave" voters also be removed from the electoral roll?
"People who disagree with me shouldn't get to vote" isn't necessarily the most compelling of democratic arguments.
For age, a line has to be drawn somewhere. The only disagreement is where.
Well yes that too.
But if the argument is if voters are incapable of making rational decisions I say fair enough. I also say voters voting to impose economic sanctions on themselves are incapable of making rational decisions, so should they be allowed to vote?
Your argument is "people who voted the "wrong" way on an issue that I feel passionately about shouldn't be allowed to vote."
It's a pathetically weak argument.
My argument is by voting to sabotage their own economic interests in the Referendum they demonstrated a cognitive incompetence which should question whether they have the capacity to vote, and therefore should they be allowed to vote?
Be careful demanding intellectual cut-offs for who can vote, they might set a bar that catches you out too.
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It must have felt a bit like this, being a politically-aware person in 5th century Rome, wondering how on earth you ended up being led by people who were wilfully incompetent.
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It must have felt a bit like this, being a politically-aware person in 5th century Rome, wondering how on earth you ended up being led by people who were wilfully incompetent.
It’s a combination of a lack of curiosity and laziness. If you are ex head of SIS about to be interviewed about a subject, maybe mug up on the subject and check what you think is correct factually rather than just blagging it.
There was a minister being interviewed about something the other morning and she was asked about a major news story and she said she hadn’t read about it and didn’t know any info - it didn’t occur to Robinson or whoever was interviewing to say to her “you have come on probably the biggest daily political news programme and you claim not have knowledge of one of the biggest news stories of the day - did you not think, as a minister in the UK government it is important you should know the details?”.
Lazy, slack, messy country.
I prefer them to admit they don't know what the facts about a story are than try to blag it and talk (sometimes damaging) crap.
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
They're an offshoot of Islam.
Perhaps analogous to Mormons and Christianity.
I suspect that outsiders just view the inhabitants as either Muslims, Christians or Jews.
And as Druze aren't Christians or Jews they're assumed to be Muslims.
They’re absolutely not Muslims. They don’t regard themselves as Muslims and actual Muslims don’t regard the Druze as Muslims. If you go to the Lebanon or Syria (as I did) this is painfully clear on all sides
And I’m just a travel hack flint knapper. This guy is ex head of UK intelligence
For all those on here saying 16 and 17 year olds should not be allowed to vote because they do not possess the capacity to discern lies from facts can I throw a word into the pot? Brexit.
If lacking clarity and possessing an inability to assimilate facts from lies should deny a franchise, can I remind you all of those people who voted to leave the European Union due to their inability to assimilate facts from lies?
My conclusion? If 16 and 17 year olds are not up to the cognitive requirement for voting, should "Leave" voters also be removed from the electoral roll?
"People who disagree with me shouldn't get to vote" isn't necessarily the most compelling of democratic arguments.
For age, a line has to be drawn somewhere. The only disagreement is where.
Well yes that too.
But if the argument is if voters are incapable of making rational decisions I say fair enough. I also say voters voting to impose economic sanctions on themselves are incapable of making rational decisions, so should they be allowed to vote?
Your argument is "people who voted the "wrong" way on an issue that I feel passionately about shouldn't be allowed to vote."
It's a pathetically weak argument.
My argument is by voting to sabotage their own economic interests in the Referendum they demonstrated a cognitive incompetence which should question whether they have the capacity to vote, and therefore should they be allowed to vote?
That's just you being endlessly bitter about an outcome that you dislike. Get over it. I've had to get over being on the losing end of political campaigns.
As a Tory in the last fifty years you've only lost four!
Am I right in thinking 16/17 year olds can have sex with MPs but cannot vote for them?
But they can't buy them a drink. Or marry them.
Its good that they are sober* enough to drive the MP home at 17.
*It is legal to buy them drinks, just not drink the drink themselves, unless cider accompanied by a meal etc.
There have always been different ages for different activities, so I find this a very poor argument against votes at 16.
Yes, apparently being 15 years old is no defence against being groomed into joining a terrorist organisation and having the citizenship of the country in which you were born removed.
The age of criminal responsibility is ten.
I hadn't realised that banishment without being tried for the crimes for which one is deemed responsible is now being applied to ten year olds.
Begun chose to leave the UK for an alternative society. We are just respecting her right to make that choice. Isn’t that what feminism is about?
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It is an offshoot of the Ishmaili Muslim tradition though.
They themselves don’t consider themselves Muslim, and as we are all about the self ID and lived experience these days then it’s really their opinion that matters.
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
Bit like head of BBC News not knowing the Hamas government and Hamas fighters are one and the same thing and both designated as terrorists.
I genuinely despair at the basic intellectual capabilities of those who govern us. From the prime minister and the chancellor down, the military, the civil servants, the judiciary
What if there is no vast conspiracy to ruin Britain, the simple fact is: they’re all morons?
Not so much morons as deliberately educationally/intellectually ignorant.
That to reach the top you have to recite what are deemed the 'established' facts and beliefs and anyone asking questions is told to shut up.
I remember discussing this with a military historian, about how was it so many fools ended up commanding the armies of Austria-Hungary, Italy, and Russia, during WWI.
He replied that they had two vital skills. They knew how to tell superiors what they wished to hear; and they knew how to put down more competent rivals.
For all those on here saying 16 and 17 year olds should not be allowed to vote because they do not possess the capacity to discern lies from facts can I throw a word into the pot? Brexit.
If lacking clarity and possessing an inability to assimilate facts from lies should deny a franchise, can I remind you all of those people who voted to leave the European Union due to their inability to assimilate facts from lies?
My conclusion? If 16 and 17 year olds are not up to the cognitive requirement for voting, should "Leave" voters also be removed from the electoral roll?
"People who disagree with me shouldn't get to vote" isn't necessarily the most compelling of democratic arguments.
For age, a line has to be drawn somewhere. The only disagreement is where.
Well yes that too.
But if the argument is if voters are incapable of making rational decisions I say fair enough. I also say voters voting to impose economic sanctions on themselves are incapable of making rational decisions, so should they be allowed to vote?
Your argument is "people who voted the "wrong" way on an issue that I feel passionately about shouldn't be allowed to vote."
It's a pathetically weak argument.
My argument is by voting to sabotage their own economic interests in the Referendum they demonstrated a cognitive incompetence which should question whether they have the capacity to vote, and therefore should they be allowed to vote?
Be careful demanding intellectual cut-offs for who can vote, they might set a bar that catches you out too.
The astounding combination of voting for Brexit, Johnson and Starmer might just be the criteria for vote confiscation.
For all those on here saying 16 and 17 year olds should not be allowed to vote because they do not possess the capacity to discern lies from facts can I throw a word into the pot? Brexit.
If lacking clarity and possessing an inability to assimilate facts from lies should deny a franchise, can I remind you all of those people who voted to leave the European Union due to their inability to assimilate facts from lies?
My conclusion? If 16 and 17 year olds are not up to the cognitive requirement for voting, should "Leave" voters also be removed from the electoral roll?
"People who disagree with me shouldn't get to vote" isn't necessarily the most compelling of democratic arguments.
For age, a line has to be drawn somewhere. The only disagreement is where.
Well yes that too.
But if the argument is if voters are incapable of making rational decisions I say fair enough. I also say voters voting to impose economic sanctions on themselves are incapable of making rational decisions, so should they be allowed to vote?
Your argument is "people who voted the "wrong" way on an issue that I feel passionately about shouldn't be allowed to vote."
It's a pathetically weak argument.
My argument is by voting to sabotage their own economic interests in the Referendum they demonstrated a cognitive incompetence which should question whether they have the capacity to vote, and therefore should they be allowed to vote?
Be careful demanding intellectual cut-offs for who can vote, they might set a bar that catches you out too.
The astounding combination of voting for Brexit, Johnson and Starmer might just be the criteria for vote confiscation.
For all those on here saying 16 and 17 year olds should not be allowed to vote because they do not possess the capacity to discern lies from facts can I throw a word into the pot? Brexit.
If lacking clarity and possessing an inability to assimilate facts from lies should deny a franchise, can I remind you all of those people who voted to leave the European Union due to their inability to assimilate facts from lies?
My conclusion? If 16 and 17 year olds are not up to the cognitive requirement for voting, should "Leave" voters also be removed from the electoral roll?
"People who disagree with me shouldn't get to vote" isn't necessarily the most compelling of democratic arguments.
For age, a line has to be drawn somewhere. The only disagreement is where.
£200 pounds a year income at the time of the Putney debates is £42k a year now (Bank of England inflation calculator)
Of course that needs to be income from land.
Elections will be much easier to hold, though.
That’s, what, £2m of land? A certain symmetry to that
For all those on here saying 16 and 17 year olds should not be allowed to vote because they do not possess the capacity to discern lies from facts can I throw a word into the pot? Brexit.
If lacking clarity and possessing an inability to assimilate facts from lies should deny a franchise, can I remind you all of those people who voted to leave the European Union due to their inability to assimilate facts from lies?
My conclusion? If 16 and 17 year olds are not up to the cognitive requirement for voting, should "Leave" voters also be removed from the electoral roll?
I am beginning to be persuaded that there is a case for 16s and 17s to vote, but if there is a worse argument than this one I don't know what it might be.
Perhaps 16 and 17s would be so innocent of the rhetoric of 50 years that they would soon see that the EU had become a body which it was impossible for the UK to be in, and also impossible for the UK to be outside and that some non legalistic multi speed sensible flexibility (such as Merz is now too late mentioning) would have sorted it. Their day can't come too soon for me.
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It must have felt a bit like this, being a politically-aware person in 5th century Rome, wondering how on earth you ended up being led by people who were wilfully incompetent.
It’s a combination of a lack of curiosity and laziness. If you are ex head of SIS about to be interviewed about a subject, maybe mug up on the subject and check what you think is correct factually rather than just blagging it.
There was a minister being interviewed about something the other morning and she was asked about a major news story and she said she hadn’t read about it and didn’t know any info - it didn’t occur to Robinson or whoever was interviewing to say to her “you have come on probably the biggest daily political news programme and you claim not have knowledge of one of the biggest news stories of the day - did you not think, as a minister in the UK government it is important you should know the details?”.
Lazy, slack, messy country.
I prefer them to admit they don't know what the facts about a story are than try to blag it and talk (sometimes damaging) crap.
Saying “I haven’t read the story” is an old tactic, when the story is embarrassing and the spin doctors haven’t yet written a cue card with a glib and superficially convincing reposte.
Am I right in thinking 16/17 year olds can have sex with MPs but cannot vote for them?
But they can't buy them a drink. Or marry them.
Its good that they are sober* enough to drive the MP home at 17.
*It is legal to buy them drinks, just not drink the drink themselves, unless cider accompanied by a meal etc.
There have always been different ages for different activities, so I find this a very poor argument against votes at 16.
Yes, apparently being 15 years old is no defence against being groomed into joining a terrorist organisation and having the citizenship of the country in which you were born removed.
The age of criminal responsibility is ten.
Also, according to her statements, she carried on committing war crimes for a number of years.
She needs to be tried and sentenced. Personally, I would do it in this country. I do like the fumbling and the “but it wouldn’t be a fair trial” from Human Rights lot when this is suggested.
For me Hunan Rights is a two edged sword.
Its perfectly possible to be tried here for crimes committed abroad and the "Human Rights lot" are why we have such laws.
I suspect the defence would be that she was groomed and coerced, and that would be an interesting exploration of the law. We do seem to take a very different attitude to being groomed depending on public sympathy for the child involved.
For all those on here saying 16 and 17 year olds should not be allowed to vote because they do not possess the capacity to discern lies from facts can I throw a word into the pot? Brexit.
If lacking clarity and possessing an inability to assimilate facts from lies should deny a franchise, can I remind you all of those people who voted to leave the European Union due to their inability to assimilate facts from lies?
My conclusion? If 16 and 17 year olds are not up to the cognitive requirement for voting, should "Leave" voters also be removed from the electoral roll?
"People who disagree with me shouldn't get to vote" isn't necessarily the most compelling of democratic arguments.
For age, a line has to be drawn somewhere. The only disagreement is where.
Well yes that too.
But if the argument is if voters are incapable of making rational decisions I say fair enough. I also say voters voting to impose economic sanctions on themselves are incapable of making rational decisions, so should they be allowed to vote?
Your argument is "people who voted the "wrong" way on an issue that I feel passionately about shouldn't be allowed to vote."
It's a pathetically weak argument.
My argument is by voting to sabotage their own economic interests in the Referendum they demonstrated a cognitive incompetence which should question whether they have the capacity to vote, and therefore should they be allowed to vote?
Be careful demanding intellectual cut-offs for who can vote, they might set a bar that catches you out too.
If I had voted Leave that would be a perfectly reasonable reason to withdraw vmy franchise. It was a unique event.
I might also be slightly tongue in cheek in my shooting down the argument given that 16 and 17 year olds are not bright enough to vote.
Anyway I can't see a thing on here so I will leave you all alone.
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It is an offshoot of the Ishmaili Muslim tradition though.
Sweet holy Allah, they are not Muslims
I’ve been to walid Jumblatt’s hq/museum in the Lebanon: a fascinating place (and a fine museum)
I’ve hung out with Druze people. They are incredibly hospitable (like many in the region) and they are absolutely adamant that they are not Muslim and Muslims agree with that
They are kind of Sui generis but maybe the best analogy is the Yazidi
For all those on here saying 16 and 17 year olds should not be allowed to vote because they do not possess the capacity to discern lies from facts can I throw a word into the pot? Brexit.
If lacking clarity and possessing an inability to assimilate facts from lies should deny a franchise, can I remind you all of those people who voted to leave the European Union due to their inability to assimilate facts from lies?
My conclusion? If 16 and 17 year olds are not up to the cognitive requirement for voting, should "Leave" voters also be removed from the electoral roll?
"People who disagree with me shouldn't get to vote" isn't necessarily the most compelling of democratic arguments.
For age, a line has to be drawn somewhere. The only disagreement is where.
Well yes that too.
But if the argument is if voters are incapable of making rational decisions I say fair enough. I also say voters voting to impose economic sanctions on themselves are incapable of making rational decisions, so should they be allowed to vote?
Your argument is "people who voted the "wrong" way on an issue that I feel passionately about shouldn't be allowed to vote."
It's a pathetically weak argument.
My argument is by voting to sabotage their own economic interests in the Referendum they demonstrated a cognitive incompetence which should question whether they have the capacity to vote, and therefore should they be allowed to vote?
The latest garbage legislation enacted in the EU relating to my industry shows what a lucky escape we had getting out of the bureaucratic Brussels nightmare:
Am I right in thinking 16/17 year olds can have sex with MPs but cannot vote for them?
But they can't buy them a drink. Or marry them.
Its good that they are sober* enough to drive the MP home at 17.
*It is legal to buy them drinks, just not drink the drink themselves, unless cider accompanied by a meal etc.
There have always been different ages for different activities, so I find this a very poor argument against votes at 16.
Yes, apparently being 15 years old is no defence against being groomed into joining a terrorist organisation and having the citizenship of the country in which you were born removed.
The age of criminal responsibility is ten.
Also, according to her statements, she carried on committing war crimes for a number of years.
She needs to be tried and sentenced. Personally, I would do it in this country. I do like the fumbling and the “but it wouldn’t be a fair trial” from Human Rights lot when this is suggested.
For me Hunan Rights is a two edged sword.
Its perfectly possible to be tried here for crimes committed abroad and the "Human Rights lot" are why we have such laws.
I suspect the defence would be that she was groomed and coerced, and that would be an interesting exploration of the law. We do seem to take a very different attitude to being groomed depending on public sympathy for the child involved.
People are afraid of her. Which is ludicrous really.
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It is an offshoot of the Ishmaili Muslim tradition though.
They themselves don’t consider themselves Muslim, and as we are all about the self ID and lived experience these days then it’s really their opinion that matters.
I must I was surprised to see @Leon in favour of self ID
Politically they tend to be aligned with the Muslims though. It depends on the context in the interview - he would have had limited time and was possibly focused on making a more important point than explaining just how the Druze fit into the patchwork of faiths in the Levant.
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It must have felt a bit like this, being a politically-aware person in 5th century Rome, wondering how on earth you ended up being led by people who were wilfully incompetent.
It’s a combination of a lack of curiosity and laziness. If you are ex head of SIS about to be interviewed about a subject, maybe mug up on the subject and check what you think is correct factually rather than just blagging it.
There was a minister being interviewed about something the other morning and she was asked about a major news story and she said she hadn’t read about it and didn’t know any info - it didn’t occur to Robinson or whoever was interviewing to say to her “you have come on probably the biggest daily political news programme and you claim not have knowledge of one of the biggest news stories of the day - did you not think, as a minister in the UK government it is important you should know the details?”.
Lazy, slack, messy country.
I prefer them to admit they don't know what the facts about a story are than try to blag it and talk (sometimes damaging) crap.
Saying “I haven’t read the story” is an old tactic, when the story is embarrassing and the spin doctors haven’t yet written a cue card with a glib and superficially convincing reposte.
Sure but there is a habit of politicians to spout drivel rather than say "that's a good question, I'm afraid I don't have the facts but I will get back to you".
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It is an offshoot of the Ishmaili Muslim tradition though.
Sweet holy Allah, they are not Muslims
I’ve been to walid Jumblatt’s hq/museum in the Lebanon: a fascinating place (and a fine museum)
I’ve hung out with Druze people. They are incredibly hospitable (like many in the region) and they are absolutely adamant that they are not Muslim and Muslims agree with that
They are kind of Sui generis but maybe the best analogy is the Yazidi
I didn’t say they were Muslims…
Someone else’s analogy of Mormons is better: they are a sister religion (while Christianity and Islam are more like first cousins). Zoroastrians are the third cousin who lives down the street while no one likes to talk about the Yazidi.
For all those on here saying 16 and 17 year olds should not be allowed to vote because they do not possess the capacity to discern lies from facts can I throw a word into the pot? Brexit.
If lacking clarity and possessing an inability to assimilate facts from lies should deny a franchise, can I remind you all of those people who voted to leave the European Union due to their inability to assimilate facts from lies?
My conclusion? If 16 and 17 year olds are not up to the cognitive requirement for voting, should "Leave" voters also be removed from the electoral roll?
"People who disagree with me shouldn't get to vote" isn't necessarily the most compelling of democratic arguments.
For age, a line has to be drawn somewhere. The only disagreement is where.
Well yes that too.
But if the argument is if voters are incapable of making rational decisions I say fair enough. I also say voters voting to impose economic sanctions on themselves are incapable of making rational decisions, so should they be allowed to vote?
Your argument is "people who voted the "wrong" way on an issue that I feel passionately about shouldn't be allowed to vote."
It's a pathetically weak argument.
My argument is by voting to sabotage their own economic interests in the Referendum they demonstrated a cognitive incompetence which should question whether they have the capacity to vote, and therefore should they be allowed to vote?
Be careful demanding intellectual cut-offs for who can vote, they might set a bar that catches you out too.
The astounding combination of voting for Brexit, Johnson and Starmer might just be the criteria for vote confiscation.
Bingo. Justifications:
Brexit vote: Because of 'ever closer union' as proved by introduction of the Euro and other Eurostate trappings such as potemkin parliament, flag and anthem. The EU's democractic deficit.
Boris vote: Him or Jezza. No serious choice, but no good choice available
Starmer vote: The only government fit to govern available. Sadly still true.
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It must have felt a bit like this, being a politically-aware person in 5th century Rome, wondering how on earth you ended up being led by people who were wilfully incompetent.
It’s a combination of a lack of curiosity and laziness. If you are ex head of SIS about to be interviewed about a subject, maybe mug up on the subject and check what you think is correct factually rather than just blagging it.
There was a minister being interviewed about something the other morning and she was asked about a major news story and she said she hadn’t read about it and didn’t know any info - it didn’t occur to Robinson or whoever was interviewing to say to her “you have come on probably the biggest daily political news programme and you claim not have knowledge of one of the biggest news stories of the day - did you not think, as a minister in the UK government it is important you should know the details?”.
Lazy, slack, messy country.
I prefer them to admit they don't know what the facts about a story are than try to blag it and talk (sometimes damaging) crap.
The interviewers do have an annoying habit of inviting ministers for interview, asking a couple of questions about their brief then haranguing them on a different topic outside their brief. Sometimes it's safest to keep in your lane.
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It is an offshoot of the Ishmaili Muslim tradition though.
Sweet holy Allah, they are not Muslims
I’ve been to walid Jumblatt’s hq/museum in the Lebanon: a fascinating place (and a fine museum)
I’ve hung out with Druze people. They are incredibly hospitable (like many in the region) and they are absolutely adamant that they are not Muslim and Muslims agree with that
They are kind of Sui generis but maybe the best analogy is the Yazidi
I remember as a child when Lebanon was on the news every day and I would hear the name “ Wally Jumblat” and found it highly amusing. Then I saw pictures of him and he looked like he couldn’t have been called anything but Wally Jumblatt with a face like that.
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It is an offshoot of the Ishmaili Muslim tradition though.
They themselves don’t consider themselves Muslim, and as we are all about the self ID and lived experience these days then it’s really their opinion that matters.
I must I was surprised to see @Leon in favour of self ID
Politically they tend to be aligned with the Muslims though. It depends on the context in the interview - he would have had limited time and was possibly focused on making a more important point than explaining just how the Druze fit into the patchwork of faiths in the Levant.
Or he’s an idiot. Given what we’ve just learned about British intel in Afghanistan, I’m going with that. He’s an idiot
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It is an offshoot of the Ishmaili Muslim tradition though.
Sweet holy Allah, they are not Muslims
I’ve been to walid Jumblatt’s hq/museum in the Lebanon: a fascinating place (and a fine museum)
I’ve hung out with Druze people. They are incredibly hospitable (like many in the region) and they are absolutely adamant that they are not Muslim and Muslims agree with that
They are kind of Sui generis but maybe the best analogy is the Yazidi
I remember as a child when Lebanon was on the news every day and I would hear the name “ Wally Jumblat” and found it highly amusing. Then I saw pictures of him and he looked like he couldn’t have been called anything but Wally Jumblatt with a face like that.
For all those on here saying 16 and 17 year olds should not be allowed to vote because they do not possess the capacity to discern lies from facts can I throw a word into the pot? Brexit.
If lacking clarity and possessing an inability to assimilate facts from lies should deny a franchise, can I remind you all of those people who voted to leave the European Union due to their inability to assimilate facts from lies?
My conclusion? If 16 and 17 year olds are not up to the cognitive requirement for voting, should "Leave" voters also be removed from the electoral roll?
"People who disagree with me shouldn't get to vote" isn't necessarily the most compelling of democratic arguments.
For age, a line has to be drawn somewhere. The only disagreement is where.
Well yes that too.
But if the argument is if voters are incapable of making rational decisions I say fair enough. I also say voters voting to impose economic sanctions on themselves are incapable of making rational decisions, so should they be allowed to vote?
Your argument is "people who voted the "wrong" way on an issue that I feel passionately about shouldn't be allowed to vote."
It's a pathetically weak argument.
My argument is by voting to sabotage their own economic interests in the Referendum they demonstrated a cognitive incompetence which should question whether they have the capacity to vote, and therefore should they be allowed to vote?
The latest garbage legislation enacted in the EU relating to my industry shows what a lucky escape we had getting out of the bureaucratic Brussels nightmare:
Well.if we had stayed in the EU our pictures would be exempt.
Likewise, having been to the Egyptian museum in Turin how many dozens of Egyptian neck rests does an institution need to own/ display. I am sure the practicalities of limiting the importation of historical artefacts has a reasonable basis.*
Am I right in thinking 16/17 year olds can have sex with MPs but cannot vote for them?
But they can't buy them a drink. Or marry them.
Its good that they are sober* enough to drive the MP home at 17.
*It is legal to buy them drinks, just not drink the drink themselves, unless cider accompanied by a meal etc.
There have always been different ages for different activities, so I find this a very poor argument against votes at 16.
Yes, apparently being 15 years old is no defence against being groomed into joining a terrorist organisation and having the citizenship of the country in which you were born removed.
The age of criminal responsibility is ten.
Also, according to her statements, she carried on committing war crimes for a number of years.
She needs to be tried and sentenced. Personally, I would do it in this country. I do like the fumbling and the “but it wouldn’t be a fair trial” from Human Rights lot when this is suggested.
For me Hunan Rights is a two edged sword.
Its perfectly possible to be tried here for crimes committed abroad and the "Human Rights lot" are why we have such laws.
I suspect the defence would be that she was groomed and coerced, and that would be an interesting exploration of the law. We do seem to take a very different attitude to being groomed depending on public sympathy for the child involved.
I’m talking about those for whom the idea of a trial is wrong. For them, Human Rights is take take take.
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It is an offshoot of the Ishmaili Muslim tradition though.
Sweet holy Allah, they are not Muslims
I’ve been to walid Jumblatt’s hq/museum in the Lebanon: a fascinating place (and a fine museum)
I’ve hung out with Druze people. They are incredibly hospitable (like many in the region) and they are absolutely adamant that they are not Muslim and Muslims agree with that
They are kind of Sui generis but maybe the best analogy is the Yazidi
I didn’t say they were Muslims…
Someone else’s analogy of Mormons is better: they are a sister religion (while Christianity and Islam are more like first cousins). Zoroastrians are the third cousin who lives down the street while no one likes to talk about the Yazidi.
No. They are far more distant from Islam than Mormonism is from Christianity
They split from Islam in the 11th century, you can only be Druze by birth; no one converts
Am I right in thinking 16/17 year olds can have sex with MPs but cannot vote for them?
But they can't buy them a drink. Or marry them.
Its good that they are sober* enough to drive the MP home at 17.
*It is legal to buy them drinks, just not drink the drink themselves, unless cider accompanied by a meal etc.
There have always been different ages for different activities, so I find this a very poor argument against votes at 16.
Yes, apparently being 15 years old is no defence against being groomed into joining a terrorist organisation and having the citizenship of the country in which you were born removed.
The age of criminal responsibility is ten.
Also, according to her statements, she carried on committing war crimes for a number of years.
She needs to be tried and sentenced. Personally, I would do it in this country. I do like the fumbling and the “but it wouldn’t be a fair trial” from Human Rights lot when this is suggested.
For me Hunan Rights is a two edged sword.
Its perfectly possible to be tried here for crimes committed abroad and the "Human Rights lot" are why we have such laws.
I suspect the defence would be that she was groomed and coerced, and that would be an interesting exploration of the law. We do seem to take a very different attitude to being groomed depending on public sympathy for the child involved.
I’m talking about those for whom the idea of a trial is wrong. For them, Human Rights is take take take.
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It is an offshoot of the Ishmaili Muslim tradition though.
They themselves don’t consider themselves Muslim, and as we are all about the self ID and lived experience these days then it’s really their opinion that matters.
I must I was surprised to see @Leon in favour of self ID
Politically they tend to be aligned with the Muslims though. It depends on the context in the interview - he would have had limited time and was possibly focused on making a more important point than explaining just how the Druze fit into the patchwork of faiths in the Levant.
Or he’s an idiot. Given what we’ve just learned about British intel in Afghanistan, I’m going with that. He’s an idiot
He said “the Druze are Arabs then Muslims. They are part of the network of ethnic and religious groups in Syria”. It’s not as clear as it might be, but not as simple as you are representing.
The point he was making is that it is the Israeli government is probably lying - it is unlikely that they are intervening because they are concerned about the Druze (as an Arab, Muslim heritage group) - and far more likely that they are trying to create a divided and weak Syria by supporting one specific sub-group
That’s an important point that you seem to have missed. And pretty astute. A moron would get distracted by the tiny detail rather than focus on what matters.
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It must have felt a bit like this, being a politically-aware person in 5th century Rome, wondering how on earth you ended up being led by people who were wilfully incompetent.
It’s a combination of a lack of curiosity and laziness. If you are ex head of SIS about to be interviewed about a subject, maybe mug up on the subject and check what you think is correct factually rather than just blagging it.
There was a minister being interviewed about something the other morning and she was asked about a major news story and she said she hadn’t read about it and didn’t know any info - it didn’t occur to Robinson or whoever was interviewing to say to her “you have come on probably the biggest daily political news programme and you claim not have knowledge of one of the biggest news stories of the day - did you not think, as a minister in the UK government it is important you should know the details?”.
Lazy, slack, messy country.
I prefer them to admit they don't know what the facts about a story are than try to blag it and talk (sometimes damaging) crap.
The interviewers do have an annoying habit of inviting ministers for interview, asking a couple of questions about their brief then haranguing them on a different topic outside their brief. Sometimes it's safest to keep in your lane.
In general IMHO they should stop interviewing ministers at all, and especially doing it live. The questions are often silly, and the minister's job is to add nothing to what is already in their brief. Instead the media, especially the BBC, should follow what they produce in parliament, committees, reports, press releases and speeches and provide expert comment in an unbiased way on it.
If they interview ministers they should pre-record it, and where questions are avoided or pivoted etc the BBC's job is not to broadcast the non answer, but to broadcast the newsworthy fact that these (long list) were the issues they evaded.
Even in the vanishingly unlikely event that he wins, the amount of dirty laundry that will be aired about him is going to be enormously embarrassing.
I suppose the question is whether his base will actually care. Very probably not given they're all even more delusional than he is, but if even just a few of them do that has alarming implications for the Republicans in the mid-terms.
He's now up against Murdoch and Musk re Epstein. Not sure even he will be able to bluster and "fake news" his way out of this one.
You really would have to be incredibly stupid to still believe anything Trump comes out with. I can only assume that the "base" only get their information from "Truth Social" et al (or that they really were that stupid all along)
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It is an offshoot of the Ishmaili Muslim tradition though.
They themselves don’t consider themselves Muslim, and as we are all about the self ID and lived experience these days then it’s really their opinion that matters.
I must I was surprised to see @Leon in favour of self ID
Politically they tend to be aligned with the Muslims though. It depends on the context in the interview - he would have had limited time and was possibly focused on making a more important point than explaining just how the Druze fit into the patchwork of faiths in the Levant.
Or he’s an idiot. Given what we’ve just learned about British intel in Afghanistan, I’m going with that. He’s an idiot
He said “the Druze are Arabs then Muslims. They are part of the network of ethnic and religious groups in Syria”. It’s not as clear as it might be, but not as simple as you are representing.
The point he was making is that it is the Israeli government is probably lying - it is unlikely that they are intervening because they are concerned about the Druze (as an Arab, Muslim heritage group) - and far more likely that they are trying to create a divided and weak Syria by supporting one specific sub-group
That’s an important point that you seem to have missed. And pretty astute. A moron would get distracted by the tiny detail rather than focus on what matters.
They are not Muslims. He said they are Muslims
It’s pretty basic stuff. It’s like me saying you’re an upper class twit when you’re lower middle class, as you’ve told us
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It is an offshoot of the Ishmaili Muslim tradition though.
Sweet holy Allah, they are not Muslims
I’ve been to walid Jumblatt’s hq/museum in the Lebanon: a fascinating place (and a fine museum)
I’ve hung out with Druze people. They are incredibly hospitable (like many in the region) and they are absolutely adamant that they are not Muslim and Muslims agree with that
They are kind of Sui generis but maybe the best analogy is the Yazidi
I remember as a child when Lebanon was on the news every day and I would hear the name “ Wally Jumblat” and found it highly amusing. Then I saw pictures of him and he looked like he couldn’t have been called anything but Wally Jumblatt with a face like that.
News was much more fun when a child.
Amazingly Walid Jumblatt is still around. Indeed only 75
I just checked on his palace at Beiteddine. I feared the worst. But apparently it still survives with its gorgeous frescos tho it now belongs to the Lebanese state
If anyone is in south Lebanon this afternoon, you should pop by. It’s lovely. Amazing med views from the cafe terrace
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It is an offshoot of the Ishmaili Muslim tradition though.
Sweet holy Allah, they are not Muslims
I’ve been to walid Jumblatt’s hq/museum in the Lebanon: a fascinating place (and a fine museum)
I’ve hung out with Druze people. They are incredibly hospitable (like many in the region) and they are absolutely adamant that they are not Muslim and Muslims agree with that
They are kind of Sui generis but maybe the best analogy is the Yazidi
I remember as a child when Lebanon was on the news every day and I would hear the name “ Wally Jumblat” and found it highly amusing. Then I saw pictures of him and he looked like he couldn’t have been called anything but Wally Jumblatt with a face like that.
News was much more fun when a child.
Amazingly Walid Jumblatt is still around. Indeed only 75
I just checked on his palace at Beiteddine. I feared the worst. But apparently it still survives with its gorgeous frescos tho it now belongs to the Lebanese state
If anyone is in south Lebanon this afternoon, you should pop by. It’s lovely. Amazing med views from the cafe terrace
I was amazed he’s still alive, I thought he was old 40 years ago.
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It is an offshoot of the Ishmaili Muslim tradition though.
They themselves don’t consider themselves Muslim, and as we are all about the self ID and lived experience these days then it’s really their opinion that matters.
I must I was surprised to see @Leon in favour of self ID
Politically they tend to be aligned with the Muslims though. It depends on the context in the interview - he would have had limited time and was possibly focused on making a more important point than explaining just how the Druze fit into the patchwork of faiths in the Levant.
Or he’s an idiot. Given what we’ve just learned about British intel in Afghanistan, I’m going with that. He’s an idiot
He said “the Druze are Arabs then Muslims. They are part of the network of ethnic and religious groups in Syria”. It’s not as clear as it might be, but not as simple as you are representing.
The point he was making is that it is the Israeli government is probably lying - it is unlikely that they are intervening because they are concerned about the Druze (as an Arab, Muslim heritage group) - and far more likely that they are trying to create a divided and weak Syria by supporting one specific sub-group
That’s an important point that you seem to have missed. And pretty astute. A moron would get distracted by the tiny detail rather than focus on what matters.
They are not Muslims. He said they are Muslims
It’s pretty basic stuff. It’s like me saying you’re an upper class twit when you’re lower middle class, as you’ve told us
That’s NOT what he said. I took the trouble to quote his words. He said they are Arabs, and distinguished that status from the Muslim classification (“then Muslims”). “Then Muslims” is not the same as “are Muslims”.
He was talking about the hierarchy of identities.
Druze are culturally closer to being Muslim than they are to being Jewish.
He was being very precise in his language, although it could have been been clearer for the non expert listener.
What do you think the probability is of a militantly nationalistic Jewish state supporting the Druze because they sympathise with them?
That’s the point he was making: that Israel is looking to turn Syria into another Somalia - something which is absolutely contrary to British policy and interests.
Don’t you think that point is more important than quibbling over syntax?
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It is an offshoot of the Ishmaili Muslim tradition though.
Sweet holy Allah, they are not Muslims
I’ve been to walid Jumblatt’s hq/museum in the Lebanon: a fascinating place (and a fine museum)
I’ve hung out with Druze people. They are incredibly hospitable (like many in the region) and they are absolutely adamant that they are not Muslim and Muslims agree with that
They are kind of Sui generis but maybe the best analogy is the Yazidi
I remember as a child when Lebanon was on the news every day and I would hear the name “ Wally Jumblat” and found it highly amusing. Then I saw pictures of him and he looked like he couldn’t have been called anything but Wally Jumblatt with a face like that.
News was much more fun when a child.
Amazingly Walid Jumblatt is still around. Indeed only 75
I just checked on his palace at Beiteddine. I feared the worst. But apparently it still survives with its gorgeous frescos tho it now belongs to the Lebanese state
If anyone is in south Lebanon this afternoon, you should pop by. It’s lovely. Amazing med views from the cafe terrace
I was amazed he’s still alive, I thought he was old 40 years ago.
Yes. I’m weirdly and slightly heartened by his survival
And he does have one of the more cheering names in an otherwise depressing corner of the world
For all those on here saying 16 and 17 year olds should not be allowed to vote because they do not possess the capacity to discern lies from facts can I throw a word into the pot? Brexit.
If lacking clarity and possessing an inability to assimilate facts from lies should deny a franchise, can I remind you all of those people who voted to leave the European Union due to their inability to assimilate facts from lies?
My conclusion? If 16 and 17 year olds are not up to the cognitive requirement for voting, should "Leave" voters also be removed from the electoral roll?
"People who disagree with me shouldn't get to vote" isn't necessarily the most compelling of democratic arguments.
For age, a line has to be drawn somewhere. The only disagreement is where.
Well yes that too.
But if the argument is if voters are incapable of making rational decisions I say fair enough. I also say voters voting to impose economic sanctions on themselves are incapable of making rational decisions, so should they be allowed to vote?
Your argument is "people who voted the "wrong" way on an issue that I feel passionately about shouldn't be allowed to vote."
It's a pathetically weak argument.
My argument is by voting to sabotage their own economic interests in the Referendum they demonstrated a cognitive incompetence which should question whether they have the capacity to vote, and therefore should they be allowed to vote?
The latest garbage legislation enacted in the EU relating to my industry shows what a lucky escape we had getting out of the bureaucratic Brussels nightmare:
Well.if we had stayed in the EU our pictures would be exempt.
Likewise, having been to the Egyptian museum in Turin how many dozens of Egyptian neck rests does an institution need to own/ display. I am sure the practicalities of limiting the importation of historical artefacts has a reasonable basis.*
* I have only briefly skim read your link.
Still can't see to post, so tarra a bit.
Lol.
It will pretty much kill Europe in the international art market....
Am I right in thinking 16/17 year olds can have sex with MPs but cannot vote for them?
But they can't buy them a drink. Or marry them.
Its good that they are sober* enough to drive the MP home at 17.
*It is legal to buy them drinks, just not drink the drink themselves, unless cider accompanied by a meal etc.
There have always been different ages for different activities, so I find this a very poor argument against votes at 16.
Yes, apparently being 15 years old is no defence against being groomed into joining a terrorist organisation and having the citizenship of the country in which you were born removed.
The age of criminal responsibility is ten.
Also, according to her statements, she carried on committing war crimes for a number of years.
She needs to be tried and sentenced. Personally, I would do it in this country. I do like the fumbling and the “but it wouldn’t be a fair trial” from Human Rights lot when this is suggested.
For me Hunan Rights is a two edged sword.
Its perfectly possible to be tried here for crimes committed abroad and the "Human Rights lot" are why we have such laws.
I suspect the defence would be that she was groomed and coerced, and that would be an interesting exploration of the law. We do seem to take a very different attitude to being groomed depending on public sympathy for the child involved.
I’m talking about those for whom the idea of a trial is wrong. For them, Human Rights is take take take.
I've never met any of those.
One, when, I suggested the trial (above), was incredulous.
He then stated, that as a lawyer, it was an abuse for the state to prosecute individuals who are part of non state organisations for War Crimes.
He then made it clear that he didn’t believe the law applied to “resistance movements”.
Good morning everyone. I am one of the 47% who thought the youngest age for marriage in England and Wales was 16. The statistic that surprised me was that, with the exception of London, more Scots, where the minimum age is still 16, gave the correct answer than responders from any of the regions of England, or Wales.
For all those on here saying 16 and 17 year olds should not be allowed to vote because they do not possess the capacity to discern lies from facts can I throw a word into the pot? Brexit.
If lacking clarity and possessing an inability to assimilate facts from lies should deny a franchise, can I remind you all of those people who voted to leave the European Union due to their inability to assimilate facts from lies?
My conclusion? If 16 and 17 year olds are not up to the cognitive requirement for voting, should "Leave" voters also be removed from the electoral roll?
I would be very reluctant to set any competency test on the right to vote, literacy and similar tests were widely abused to deny African-americans and other groups the vote in the past.
I had the idea that age shouldn’t be a factor when it comes to voting, and that a better way was to only allow those who had four GCSE’s at C or above (or whatever the equivalent is now, a number?). The downsides would be that it rules out those who are clever but not academically minded, and immigrants who didn’t go to school here , although going to night school or learning at home in order to get the vote might improve assimilation
Sure. As long as the people who don't get to vote don't get to pay taxes.
Or you could turn it around the other way. If you don’t pay Income Tax or NI you don’t get to vote.
He has missed the wood for the trees here going down the AI rabbit hole. Girls have been outperforming boys at school, that leads to going to better unis / better courses e.g. medicine is a very hard course to get on, as is also clear from the example at the bottom, entry level at law firms is now dominated by women.
He is analysing American data; you are discussing Britain. Trends may be the same but we'd need evidence. He is also basing his analysis on very short time periods.
I had the idea that age shouldn’t be a factor when it comes to voting, and that a better way was to only allow those who had four GCSE’s at C or above (or whatever the equivalent is now, a number?). The downsides would be that it rules out those who are clever but not academically minded, and immigrants who didn’t go to school here , although going to night school or learning at home in order to get the vote might improve assimilation
Sure. As long as the people who don't get to vote don't get to pay taxes.
Or you could turn it around the other way. If you don’t pay Income Tax or NI you don’t get to vote.
Would be more interesting if it was Income Tax AND National Insurance. Suddenly those past the retirement age might want to pay NI.
He has missed the wood for the trees here going down the AI rabbit hole. Girls have been outperforming boys at school, that leads to going to better unis / better courses e.g. medicine is a very hard course to get on, as is also clear from the example at the bottom, entry level at law firms is now dominated by women.
He is analysing American data; you are discussing Britain. Trends may be the same but we'd need evidence. He is also basing his analysis on very short time periods.
He has missed the wood for the trees here going down the AI rabbit hole. Girls have been outperforming boys at school, that leads to going to better unis / better courses e.g. medicine is a very hard course to get on, as is also clear from the example at the bottom, entry level at law firms is now dominated by women.
He is analysing American data; you are discussing Britain. Trends may be the same but we'd need evidence. He is also basing his analysis on very short time periods.
Law is absolutely dominated by women though.
Medicine too. And probably Masterchef after recent events.
Even in the vanishingly unlikely event that he wins, the amount of dirty laundry that will be aired about him is going to be enormously embarrassing.
I suppose the question is whether his base will actually care. Very probably not given they're all even more delusional than he is, but if even just a few of them do that has alarming implications for the Republicans in the mid-terms.
Do you believe we could be at peak jeapardy with Trump? The net is undoubtedly closing in around him. Does he figuratively come out shooting with all guns blazing? I think he has started with the firing of Maurene Comey and the sacking of Stephen Colbert by NBC.
Am I right in thinking 16/17 year olds can have sex with MPs but cannot vote for them?
But they can't buy them a drink. Or marry them.
Its good that they are sober* enough to drive the MP home at 17.
*It is legal to buy them drinks, just not drink the drink themselves, unless cider accompanied by a meal etc.
There have always been different ages for different activities, so I find this a very poor argument against votes at 16.
Yes, apparently being 15 years old is no defence against being groomed into joining a terrorist organisation and having the citizenship of the country in which you were born removed.
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It is an offshoot of the Ishmaili Muslim tradition though.
They themselves don’t consider themselves Muslim, and as we are all about the self ID and lived experience these days then it’s really their opinion that matters.
I must I was surprised to see @Leon in favour of self ID
Politically they tend to be aligned with the Muslims though. It depends on the context in the interview - he would have had limited time and was possibly focused on making a more important point than explaining just how the Druze fit into the patchwork of faiths in the Levant.
Or he’s an idiot. Given what we’ve just learned about British intel in Afghanistan, I’m going with that. He’s an idiot
He said “the Druze are Arabs then Muslims. They are part of the network of ethnic and religious groups in Syria”. It’s not as clear as it might be, but not as simple as you are representing.
The point he was making is that it is the Israeli government is probably lying - it is unlikely that they are intervening because they are concerned about the Druze (as an Arab, Muslim heritage group) - and far more likely that they are trying to create a divided and weak Syria by supporting one specific sub-group
That’s an important point that you seem to have missed. And pretty astute. A moron would get distracted by the tiny detail rather than focus on what matters.
They are not Muslims. He said they are Muslims
It’s pretty basic stuff. It’s like me saying you’re an upper class twit when you’re lower middle class, as you’ve told us
That’s NOT what he said. I took the trouble to quote his words. He said they are Arabs, and distinguished that status from the Muslim classification (“then Muslims”). “Then Muslims” is not the same as “are Muslims”.
He was talking about the hierarchy of identities.
Druze are culturally closer to being Muslim than they are to being Jewish.
He was being very precise in his language, although it could have been been clearer for the non expert listener.
What do you think the probability is of a militantly nationalistic Jewish state supporting the Druze because they sympathise with them?
That’s the point he was making: that Israel is looking to turn Syria into another Somalia - something which is absolutely contrary to British policy and interests.
I note that in the Lebanese Parliament, which Elects its MPs as half representing the "Christian" communities, and half representing the "Muslim" communities, the Druze are included in the Muslim half - and that it is reasonable to read hat across. As per Article 24 of the Lebanese Constitution. So I'm inclined to think that the interviewee was on fairly firm ground, and @Leon is a little fixated on a technical-sounding detail - Bart style .
There are 18 officially recognized religious groups: five Muslim groups (Shia, Sunni, Druze, Alawite, and Ismaili), 12 Christian groups (Maronite, Greek Orthodox, Greek Catholic, Armenian Catholic, Armenian Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Syriac Catholic, Assyrian, Chaldean, Copt, evangelical Protestant, and Roman Catholic), and Jews. Religious groups not recognized by the government include Baha’is, Buddhists, Hindus, several Protestant groups, and the Church of Jesus Christ. https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/lebanon
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
Bit like head of BBC News not knowing the Hamas government and Hamas fighters are one and the same thing and both designated as terrorists.
I genuinely despair at the basic intellectual capabilities of those who govern us. From the prime minister and the chancellor down, the military, the civil servants, the judiciary
What if there is no vast conspiracy to ruin Britain, the simple fact is: they’re all morons?
Not so much morons as deliberately educationally/intellectually ignorant.
That to reach the top you have to recite what are deemed the 'established' facts and beliefs and anyone asking questions is told to shut up.
The Druze have been a significant part of the complicated ethnoreligious mix in a region which has been of significant interest to our intelligence services for as long as I've been alive. It beggars belief the an intelligence chief could be so ignorant - and even if he were, that he would openly display the fact.
And Druze = Muslim has never been an "established fact" any one is required to believe.
It would be simpler and more accurate to say that being a fool and reaching the top are not in the slightest bit incompatible.
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It is an offshoot of the Ishmaili Muslim tradition though.
They themselves don’t consider themselves Muslim, and as we are all about the self ID and lived experience these days then it’s really their opinion that matters.
I must I was surprised to see @Leon in favour of self ID
Politically they tend to be aligned with the Muslims though. It depends on the context in the interview - he would have had limited time and was possibly focused on making a more important point than explaining just how the Druze fit into the patchwork of faiths in the Levant.
Or he’s an idiot. Given what we’ve just learned about British intel in Afghanistan, I’m going with that. He’s an idiot
He said “the Druze are Arabs then Muslims. They are part of the network of ethnic and religious groups in Syria”. It’s not as clear as it might be, but not as simple as you are representing.
The point he was making is that it is the Israeli government is probably lying - it is unlikely that they are intervening because they are concerned about the Druze (as an Arab, Muslim heritage group) - and far more likely that they are trying to create a divided and weak Syria by supporting one specific sub-group
That’s an important point that you seem to have missed. And pretty astute. A moron would get distracted by the tiny detail rather than focus on what matters.
They are not Muslims. He said they are Muslims
It’s pretty basic stuff. It’s like me saying you’re an upper class twit when you’re lower middle class, as you’ve told us
That’s NOT what he said. I took the trouble to quote his words. He said they are Arabs, and distinguished that status from the Muslim classification (“then Muslims”). “Then Muslims” is not the same as “are Muslims”.
He was talking about the hierarchy of identities.
Druze are culturally closer to being Muslim than they are to being Jewish.
He was being very precise in his language, although it could have been been clearer for the non expert listener.
What do you think the probability is of a militantly nationalistic Jewish state supporting the Druze because they sympathise with them?
That’s the point he was making: that Israel is looking to turn Syria into another Somalia - something which is absolutely contrary to British policy and interests.
Don’t you think that point is more important than quibbling over syntax?
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It is an offshoot of the Ishmaili Muslim tradition though.
They themselves don’t consider themselves Muslim, and as we are all about the self ID and lived experience these days then it’s really their opinion that matters.
I must I was surprised to see @Leon in favour of self ID
Politically they tend to be aligned with the Muslims though. It depends on the context in the interview - he would have had limited time and was possibly focused on making a more important point than explaining just how the Druze fit into the patchwork of faiths in the Levant.
Or he’s an idiot. Given what we’ve just learned about British intel in Afghanistan, I’m going with that. He’s an idiot
He said “the Druze are Arabs then Muslims. They are part of the network of ethnic and religious groups in Syria”. It’s not as clear as it might be, but not as simple as you are representing.
The point he was making is that it is the Israeli government is probably lying - it is unlikely that they are intervening because they are concerned about the Druze (as an Arab, Muslim heritage group) - and far more likely that they are trying to create a divided and weak Syria by supporting one specific sub-group
That’s an important point that you seem to have missed. And pretty astute. A moron would get distracted by the tiny detail rather than focus on what matters.
They are not Muslims. He said they are Muslims
It’s pretty basic stuff. It’s like me saying you’re an upper class twit when you’re lower middle class, as you’ve told us
That’s NOT what he said. I took the trouble to quote his words. He said they are Arabs, and distinguished that status from the Muslim classification (“then Muslims”). “Then Muslims” is not the same as “are Muslims”.
He was talking about the hierarchy of identities.
Druze are culturally closer to being Muslim than they are to being Jewish.
He was being very precise in his language, although it could have been been clearer for the non expert listener.
What do you think the probability is of a militantly nationalistic Jewish state supporting the Druze because they sympathise with them?
That’s the point he was making: that Israel is looking to turn Syria into another Somalia - something which is absolutely contrary to British policy and interests.
Don’t you think that point is more important than quibbling over syntax?
Thanks for the correction; I hadn't actually listened to it. They are still not "then Muslim", though. They are very clear - to the point of being exclusionary - that their religion is absolutely distinct from any of its near neighbours (with which it has various prophets in common).
The point about the aims of the Israeli intervention is spot on, though.
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It is an offshoot of the Ishmaili Muslim tradition though.
They themselves don’t consider themselves Muslim, and as we are all about the self ID and lived experience these days then it’s really their opinion that matters.
I must I was surprised to see @Leon in favour of self ID
Politically they tend to be aligned with the Muslims though. It depends on the context in the interview - he would have had limited time and was possibly focused on making a more important point than explaining just how the Druze fit into the patchwork of faiths in the Levant.
Or he’s an idiot. Given what we’ve just learned about British intel in Afghanistan, I’m going with that. He’s an idiot
He said “the Druze are Arabs then Muslims. They are part of the network of ethnic and religious groups in Syria”. It’s not as clear as it might be, but not as simple as you are representing.
The point he was making is that it is the Israeli government is probably lying - it is unlikely that they are intervening because they are concerned about the Druze (as an Arab, Muslim heritage group) - and far more likely that they are trying to create a divided and weak Syria by supporting one specific sub-group
That’s an important point that you seem to have missed. And pretty astute. A moron would get distracted by the tiny detail rather than focus on what matters.
They are not Muslims. He said they are Muslims
It’s pretty basic stuff. It’s like me saying you’re an upper class twit when you’re lower middle class, as you’ve told us
That’s NOT what he said. I took the trouble to quote his words. He said they are Arabs, and distinguished that status from the Muslim classification (“then Muslims”). “Then Muslims” is not the same as “are Muslims”.
He was talking about the hierarchy of identities.
Druze are culturally closer to being Muslim than they are to being Jewish.
He was being very precise in his language, although it could have been been clearer for the non expert listener.
What do you think the probability is of a militantly nationalistic Jewish state supporting the Druze because they sympathise with them?
That’s the point he was making: that Israel is looking to turn Syria into another Somalia - something which is absolutely contrary to British policy and interests.
I note that in the Lebanese Parliament, which Elects its MPs as half representing the "Christian" communities, and half representing the "Muslim" communities, the Druze are included in the Muslim half - and that it is reasonable to read hat across. As per Article 24 of the Lebanese Constitution. So I'm inclined to think that the interviewee was on fairly firm ground, and @Leon is a little fixated on a technical-sounding detail - Bart style .
There are 18 officially recognized religious groups: five Muslim groups (Shia, Sunni, Druze, Alawite, and Ismaili), 12 Christian groups (Maronite, Greek Orthodox, Greek Catholic, Armenian Catholic, Armenian Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Syriac Catholic, Assyrian, Chaldean, Copt, evangelical Protestant, and Roman Catholic), and Jews. Religious groups not recognized by the government include Baha’is, Buddhists, Hindus, several Protestant groups, and the Church of Jesus Christ. https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/lebanon
"Although the Druze faith developed from Isma'ilism, Druze do not identify as Muslims.[29][21][30] They maintain the Arabic language and culture as integral parts of their identity,[31][32][18] with Arabic being their primary language.[33] Most Druze religious practices are kept secret,[34] and conversion to their religion is not permitted for outsiders.[35] Interfaith marriages are rare and strongly discouraged. They differentiate between spiritual individuals, known as "uqqāl", who hold the faith's secrets, and secular ones, known as "juhhāl", who focus on worldly matters.[36] Druze believe that, after completing the cycle of rebirth through successive reincarnations, the soul reunites with the Cosmic Mind (al-ʻaql al-kullī).
"The Epistles of Wisdom is the foundational and central text of the Druze faith.[37] The Druze faith originated in Isma'ilism (a branch of Shia Islam),[38] and has been influenced by a diverse range of traditions, including Christianity,[39][40][41] Gnosticism, Neoplatonism,[39][40] Zoroastrianism,[42][43] Manichaeism,[44][45], and Pythagoreanism.[46][47][page needed] This has led to the development of a distinct and secretive theology, characterized by an esoteric interpretation of scripture that emphasizes the importance of the mind and truthfulness.[23][47] Druze beliefs include the concepts of theophany and reincarnation.[48]"
He has missed the wood for the trees here going down the AI rabbit hole. Girls have been outperforming boys at school, that leads to going to better unis / better courses e.g. medicine is a very hard course to get on, as is also clear from the example at the bottom, entry level at law firms is now dominated by women.
He is analysing American data; you are discussing Britain. Trends may be the same but we'd need evidence. He is also basing his analysis on very short time periods.
Are the Druze Muslim? You should simply ask them. If they don't think they are then we shouldn't consider them as such. Sawers suggests that Israel would prefer a fragmented Syria rather than a united one. Or perhaps they would prefer a plural Syria to an ideological one that seeks to massacre minorities for obvious reasons.
Lots of competition in this area but another sign that Israel is in a state of increasing derangement is that Weiss has been nominated for the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize. Perhaps she and Trump can have a joint award like Mandela and de Klerk.
MOREOVER, an ex-head of British intelligence casually claiming "the Druze are Muslims" at the same tine as the Druze are being massacred by Islamists in Syria for the crime of, er, not being Muslims, is not just depressingly stupid it is gravely offensive
Are the Druze Muslim? You should simply ask them. If they don't think they are then we shouldn't consider them as such. Sawers suggests that Israel would prefer a fragmented Syria rather than a united one. Or perhaps they would prefer a plural Syria to an ideological one that seeks to massacre minorities for obvious reasons.
The Druze faith is an offshoot of the Ismaili sect, itself a branch of Shia Islam. A bit like the Maltese language being an offshoot of Arabic, but clearly not the same language.
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It is an offshoot of the Ishmaili Muslim tradition though.
Sweet holy Allah, they are not Muslims
I’ve been to walid Jumblatt’s hq/museum in the Lebanon: a fascinating place (and a fine museum)
I’ve hung out with Druze people. They are incredibly hospitable (like many in the region) and they are absolutely adamant that they are not Muslim and Muslims agree with that
They are kind of Sui generis but maybe the best analogy is the Yazidi
I remember as a child when Lebanon was on the news every day and I would hear the name “ Wally Jumblat” and found it highly amusing. Then I saw pictures of him and he looked like he couldn’t have been called anything but Wally Jumblatt with a face like that.
News was much more fun when a child.
Amazingly Walid Jumblatt is still around. Indeed only 75
I just checked on his palace at Beiteddine. I feared the worst. But apparently it still survives with its gorgeous frescos tho it now belongs to the Lebanese state
If anyone is in south Lebanon this afternoon, you should pop by. It’s lovely. Amazing med views from the cafe terrace
He met with Syria's current president last December.
Are the Druze Muslim? You should simply ask them. If they don't think they are then we shouldn't consider them as such. Sawers suggests that Israel would prefer a fragmented Syria rather than a united one. Or perhaps they would prefer a plural Syria to an ideological one that seeks to massacre minorities for obvious reasons.
The Druze faith is an offshoot of the Ismaili sect, itself a branch of Shia Islam. A bit like the Maltese language being an offshoot of Arabic, but clearly not the same language.
Well I wouldn't compare religion to language. It's a matter of personal belief. They don't consider themselves Muslims. And it is wrong for Sawers to assume that because Israel doesn't want a ISIS style government in Syria, it's prefers a failed state. Is there lots of money in bashing Israel on the international lecture circuit?
They should have put a Druze guy and an imam in that stuido with the Head Thicko of British Intelligence
Thicko MI5 man: "so, you're Druze, that means you're Arab and Muslim, of course"
Druze man:"What??? No no no no, we are not Muslims!"
MI5 thicko: "Ah, yes, of course,. You're Muslims, then. Arabs first, but then Muslims. Yes"
Imam: "No, no no no! They are NOT Muslims!"
Druze: "Listen to us! We are not Muslims!
MI5 thicko: [chortling] "Don't be silly, I am the head of British intelligence, you're Muslims, and there's an end to it. Can I have my £500 TV fee now?"
They should have put a Druze guy and an imam in that stuido with the Head Thicko of British Intelligence
Thicko MI5 man: "so, you're Druze, that means you're Arab and Muslim, of course"
Druze man:"What??? No no no no, we are not Muslims!"
MI5 thicko: "Ah, yes, of course,. You're Muslims, then. Arabs first, but then Muslims. Yes"
Imam: "No, no no no! They are NOT Muslims!"
Druze: "Listen to us! We are not Muslims!
MI5 thicko: [chortling] "Don't be silly, I am the head of British intelligence, you're Muslims, and there's an end to it. Can I have my £500 TV fee now?"
"But are you a CATHOLIC Muslim or a PROTESTANT Muslim?"
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It is an offshoot of the Ishmaili Muslim tradition though.
They themselves don’t consider themselves Muslim, and as we are all about the self ID and lived experience these days then it’s really their opinion that matters.
I must I was surprised to see @Leon in favour of self ID
Politically they tend to be aligned with the Muslims though. It depends on the context in the interview - he would have had limited time and was possibly focused on making a more important point than explaining just how the Druze fit into the patchwork of faiths in the Levant.
Or he’s an idiot. Given what we’ve just learned about British intel in Afghanistan, I’m going with that. He’s an idiot
He said “the Druze are Arabs then Muslims. They are part of the network of ethnic and religious groups in Syria”. It’s not as clear as it might be, but not as simple as you are representing.
The point he was making is that it is the Israeli government is probably lying - it is unlikely that they are intervening because they are concerned about the Druze (as an Arab, Muslim heritage group) - and far more likely that they are trying to create a divided and weak Syria by supporting one specific sub-group
That’s an important point that you seem to have missed. And pretty astute. A moron would get distracted by the tiny detail rather than focus on what matters.
They are not Muslims. He said they are Muslims
It’s pretty basic stuff. It’s like me saying you’re an upper class twit when you’re lower middle class, as you’ve told us
That’s NOT what he said. I took the trouble to quote his words. He said they are Arabs, and distinguished that status from the Muslim classification (“then Muslims”). “Then Muslims” is not the same as “are Muslims”.
He was talking about the hierarchy of identities.
Druze are culturally closer to being Muslim than they are to being Jewish.
He was being very precise in his language, although it could have been been clearer for the non expert listener.
What do you think the probability is of a militantly nationalistic Jewish state supporting the Druze because they sympathise with them?
That’s the point he was making: that Israel is looking to turn Syria into another Somalia - something which is absolutely contrary to British policy and interests.
I note that in the Lebanese Parliament, which Elects its MPs as half representing the "Christian" communities, and half representing the "Muslim" communities, the Druze are included in the Muslim half - and that it is reasonable to read hat across. As per Article 24 of the Lebanese Constitution. So I'm inclined to think that the interviewee was on fairly firm ground, and @Leon is a little fixated on a technical-sounding detail - Bart style .
There are 18 officially recognized religious groups: five Muslim groups (Shia, Sunni, Druze, Alawite, and Ismaili), 12 Christian groups (Maronite, Greek Orthodox, Greek Catholic, Armenian Catholic, Armenian Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Syriac Catholic, Assyrian, Chaldean, Copt, evangelical Protestant, and Roman Catholic), and Jews. Religious groups not recognized by the government include Baha’is, Buddhists, Hindus, several Protestant groups, and the Church of Jesus Christ. https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/lebanon
So Anglicans not recognised as Christian then by Lebanon unless they are evangelical Protestants
Are the Druze Muslim? You should simply ask them. If they don't think they are then we shouldn't consider them as such. Sawers suggests that Israel would prefer a fragmented Syria rather than a united one. Or perhaps they would prefer a plural Syria to an ideological one that seeks to massacre minorities for obvious reasons.
The Druze faith is an offshoot of the Ismaili sect, itself a branch of Shia Islam. A bit like the Maltese language being an offshoot of Arabic, but clearly not the same language.
Well I wouldn't compare religion to language. It's a matter of personal belief. They don't consider themselves Muslims. And it is wrong for Sawers to assume that because Israel doesn't want a ISIS style government in Syria, it's prefers a failed state. Is there lots of money in bashing Israel on the international lecture circuit?
I had the idea that age shouldn’t be a factor when it comes to voting, and that a better way was to only allow those who had four GCSE’s at C or above (or whatever the equivalent is now, a number?). The downsides would be that it rules out those who are clever but not academically minded, and immigrants who didn’t go to school here , although going to night school or learning at home in order to get the vote might improve assimilation
Sure. As long as the people who don't get to vote don't get to pay taxes.
Or you could turn it around the other way. If you don’t pay Income Tax or NI you don’t get to vote.
Or just go back to 1832 on that basis and only the top 5% of property owners can vote
I haven't posted much in the last couple of days, not least because I expect Trump will survive the Epstein scandal, disgraceful as it is, and the super injunction is controversial with arguments on both sides, but absolutely not something that should be used to by the right to create division.
Re votes for16-17 years olds, we already have this in Wales and I do think this is something Labour thought would help them and as a result made it a manifesto commitment, but politics comes at you fast these days and, apart from less than half this cohort are likely to vote, it does seem the Greens and Reform are the likely beneficiaries which is absolutely something Starmer would not want
Going to Florida for my USN squadron reunion. The reason I mention it is that whenever I go missing for a while I get messages on here (and FB and Discord) asking, occasionally with a frisson of anticipation, if I am dead.
If we don’t hear from you, we would naturally assume that you are merely chained to some other guy also in a pink jump suit, digging a ditch somewhere.
In a country beginning with "E" (that isn't England or Estonia!).
After the "Women in Burkas are a security threat to the UK", earlier this week she put out a video about "Violence and crime in Greenway Road, Runcorn?" I recently spoke with business owners and residents on Greenway Road. Yet another example of HMOs packed with illegal immigrants.
Now we have "B*ll*cks, lady" coming in from several directions in the local community:
1 - Residents of 30-40 years' standing saying "Nope". 2 - A group of about 35 locals putting out a joint photograph to say it's not like that, it's clean and peaceful and a lovely place to be. 3 - Local churchwarden of the parish church on the street, teaching assistant, pointing out that local HMOs are "mainly White British", writing an open letter of refutation on behalf of the community. It takes quite a lot to get them involved. 4 - Local Police PCC saying 'we have no regular such reports, nor do residents report such a concern". Local Chiref Inspector says it is a safe place. https://www.runcornandwidnesworld.co.uk/news/25320701.residents-hit-back-mp-claims-street-blighted-crime/
Pochin has doubled down, and attacked most of them.
I think she's queering her pitch (or patch), and that coming out with this kind of stuff is not going to help her at the next Election. I can see it perhaps working for Lee Anderson in Ashfield, because he is a real local who has been here nearly as long as I have had links and would have gone and found out before having his rant. I can't see being a bollocks-merchant working for Pochin there.
Do Reform UK Central put out template press releases with gaps to fill in?
After the "Women in Burkas are a security threat to the UK", earlier this week she put out a video about "Violence and crime in Greenway Road, Runcorn?" I recently spoke with business owners and residents on Greenway Road. Yet another example of HMOs packed with illegal immigrants.
Now we have "B*ll*cks, lady" coming in from several directions in the local community:
1 - Residents of 30-40 years' standing saying "Nope". 2 - A group of about 35 locals putting out a joint photograph to say it's not like that, it's clean and peaceful and a lovely place to be. 3 - Local churchwarden of the parish church on the street, teaching assistant, pointing out that local HMOs are "mainly White British", writing an open letter of refutation on behalf of the community. It takes quite a lot to get them involved. 4 - Local Police PCC saying 'we have no regular such reports, nor do residents report such a concern". Local Chiref Inspector says it is a safe place. https://www.runcornandwidnesworld.co.uk/news/25320701.residents-hit-back-mp-claims-street-blighted-crime/
Pochin has doubled down, and attacked most of them.
I think she's queering her pitch (or patch), and that coming out with this kind of stuff is not going to help her at the next Election. I can see it perhaps working for Lee Anderson in Ashfield, because he is a real local who has been here nearly as long as I have had links and would have gone and found out before having his rant. I can't see being a bollocks-merchant working for Pochin there.
Do Reform UK Central put out template press releases with gaps to fill in?
Comments
He makes the crucial point that the Druze are Muslims
https://x.com/hearnimator/status/1945790676131512454?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Only problem, the Druze are not Muslims. How come I know that - and he doesn’t? He was the head of the SIS. His job is to know basic facts like this
We are absolutely screwed. We are led by idiots. In all regards
It's a pathetically weak argument.
Drinks all 'round!
What if there is no vast conspiracy to ruin Britain, the simple fact is: they’re all morons?
Perhaps analogous to Mormons and Christianity.
I suspect that outsiders just view the inhabitants as either Muslims, Christians or Jews.
And as Druze aren't Christians or Jews they're assumed to be Muslims.
On 16 and 17 year old’s voting, I think it’s very silly. Biologically, most 16 year old’s brains are more similar to a 14 year old’s than an 18 year old’s.
Especially boys. From memory, the male ability to estimate risk only matches that of a 13 year old girl when they hit 25.
RAISING the voting age to 25 for men (but not women) would have more science behind it.
Of course that needs to be income from land.
Elections will be much easier to hold, though.
There was a minister being interviewed about something the other morning and she was asked about a major news story and she said she hadn’t read about it and didn’t know any info - it didn’t occur to Robinson or whoever was interviewing to say to her “you have come on probably the biggest daily political news programme and you claim not have knowledge of one of the biggest news stories of the day - did you not think, as a minister in the UK government it is important you should know the details?”.
Lazy, slack, messy country.
She needs to be tried and sentenced. Personally, I would do it in this country. I do like the fumbling and the “but it wouldn’t be a fair trial” from Human Rights lot when this is suggested.
For me Hunan Rights is a two edged sword.
'The Mail & the Tele won't like it, let's just leave it to the sand jockeys to deal with.'
That to reach the top you have to recite what are deemed the 'established' facts and beliefs and anyone asking questions is told to shut up.
I never had you pinned as a Thatcherite…..
It does also exclude a good chunk of socialists. I happen to disagree with them, but I don’t think they are idiots.
And I’m just a travel hack flint knapper. This guy is ex head of UK intelligence
He replied that they had two vital skills. They knew how to tell superiors what they wished to hear; and they knew how to put down more competent rivals.
Now where did I leave my body armour?
Perhaps 16 and 17s would be so innocent of the rhetoric of 50 years that they would soon see that the EU had become a body which it was impossible for the UK to be in, and also impossible for the UK to be outside and that some non legalistic multi speed sensible flexibility (such as Merz is now too late mentioning) would have sorted it. Their day can't come too soon for me.
I suspect the defence would be that she was groomed and coerced, and that would be an interesting exploration of the law. We do seem to take a very different attitude to being groomed depending on public sympathy for the child involved.
I might also be slightly tongue in cheek in my shooting down the argument given that 16 and 17 year olds are not bright enough to vote.
Anyway I can't see a thing on here so I will leave you all alone.
I’ve been to walid Jumblatt’s hq/museum in the Lebanon: a fascinating place (and a fine museum)
I’ve hung out with Druze people. They are incredibly hospitable (like many in the region) and they are absolutely adamant that they are not Muslim and Muslims agree with that
They are kind of Sui generis but maybe the best analogy is the Yazidi
https://www.bada.org/resources/importer-statement-needed-import-cultural-goods-eu-2025
Politically they tend to be aligned with the Muslims though. It depends on the context in the interview - he would have had limited time and was possibly focused on making a more important point than explaining just how the Druze fit into the patchwork of faiths in the Levant.
Someone else’s analogy of Mormons is better: they are a sister religion (while Christianity and Islam are more like first cousins). Zoroastrians are the third cousin who lives down the street while no one likes to talk about the Yazidi.
Brexit vote: Because of 'ever closer union' as proved by introduction of the Euro and other Eurostate trappings such as potemkin parliament, flag and anthem. The EU's democractic deficit.
Boris vote: Him or Jezza. No serious choice, but no good choice available
Starmer vote: The only government fit to govern available. Sadly still true.
News was much more fun when a child.
Likewise, having been to the Egyptian museum in Turin how many dozens of Egyptian neck rests does an institution need to own/ display. I am sure the practicalities of limiting the importation of historical artefacts has a reasonable basis.*
* I have only briefly skim read your link.
Still can't see to post, so tarra a bit.
They split from Islam in the 11th century, you can only be Druze by birth; no one converts
And much else
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CwuyoiVNAQ
The point he was making is that it is the Israeli government is probably lying - it is unlikely that they are intervening because they are concerned about the Druze (as an Arab, Muslim heritage group) - and far more likely that they are trying to create a divided and weak Syria by supporting one specific sub-group
That’s an important point that you seem to have missed. And pretty astute. A moron would get distracted by the tiny detail rather than focus on what matters.
If they interview ministers they should pre-record it, and where questions are avoided or pivoted etc the BBC's job is not to broadcast the non answer, but to broadcast the newsworthy fact that these (long list) were the issues they evaded.
You really would have to be incredibly stupid to still believe anything Trump comes out with. I can only assume that the "base" only get their information from "Truth Social" et al (or that they really were that stupid all along)
It’s pretty basic stuff. It’s like me saying you’re an upper class twit when you’re lower middle class, as you’ve told us
I just checked on his palace at Beiteddine. I feared the worst. But apparently it still survives with its gorgeous frescos tho it now belongs to the Lebanese state
If anyone is in south Lebanon this afternoon, you should pop by. It’s lovely. Amazing med views from the cafe terrace
He was talking about the hierarchy of identities.
Druze are culturally closer to being Muslim than they are to being Jewish.
He was being very precise in his language, although it could have been been clearer for the non expert listener.
What do you think the probability is of a militantly nationalistic Jewish state supporting the Druze because they sympathise with them?
That’s the point he was making: that Israel is looking to turn Syria into another Somalia - something which is absolutely contrary to British policy and interests.
Don’t you think that point is more important than quibbling over syntax?
And he does have one of the more cheering names in an otherwise depressing corner of the world
It will pretty much kill Europe in the international art market....
The UK is likely to benefit hugely
He then stated, that as a lawyer, it was an abuse for the state to prosecute individuals who are part of non state organisations for War Crimes.
He then made it clear that he didn’t believe the law applied to “resistance movements”.
His fellows at the table agreed with him
I am also being a little bit impish to make my point re: the cognitive ability of 16 and 17 year old voters.
Agree?
There are 18 officially recognized religious groups: five Muslim groups (Shia, Sunni, Druze, Alawite, and Ismaili), 12 Christian groups (Maronite, Greek Orthodox, Greek Catholic, Armenian Catholic, Armenian Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Syriac Catholic, Assyrian, Chaldean, Copt, evangelical Protestant, and Roman Catholic), and Jews. Religious groups not recognized by the government include Baha’is, Buddhists, Hindus, several Protestant groups, and the Church of Jesus Christ.
https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/lebanon
It beggars belief the an intelligence chief could be so ignorant - and even if he were, that he would openly display the fact.
And Druze = Muslim has never been an "established fact" any one is required to believe.
It would be simpler and more accurate to say that being a fool and reaching the top are not in the slightest bit incompatible.
Is he your second cousin or something?
They are still not "then Muslim", though. They are very clear - to the point of being exclusionary - that their religion is absolutely distinct from any of its near neighbours (with which it has various prophets in common).
The point about the aims of the Israeli intervention is spot on, though.
"The Epistles of Wisdom is the foundational and central text of the Druze faith.[37] The Druze faith originated in Isma'ilism (a branch of Shia Islam),[38] and has been influenced by a diverse range of traditions, including Christianity,[39][40][41] Gnosticism, Neoplatonism,[39][40] Zoroastrianism,[42][43] Manichaeism,[44][45], and Pythagoreanism.[46][47][page needed] This has led to the development of a distinct and secretive theology, characterized by an esoteric interpretation of scripture that emphasizes the importance of the mind and truthfulness.[23][47] Druze beliefs include the concepts of theophany and reincarnation.[48]"
Perhaps she and Trump can have a joint award like Mandela and de Klerk.
Thicko MI5 man: "so, you're Druze, that means you're Arab and Muslim, of course"
Druze man:"What??? No no no no, we are not Muslims!"
MI5 thicko: "Ah, yes, of course,. You're Muslims, then. Arabs first, but then Muslims. Yes"
Imam: "No, no no no! They are NOT Muslims!"
Druze: "Listen to us! We are not Muslims!
MI5 thicko: [chortling] "Don't be silly, I am the head of British intelligence, you're Muslims, and there's an end to it. Can I have my £500 TV fee now?"
Australia 12, Lions 35
I think they will crush them
I haven't posted much in the last couple of days, not least because I expect Trump will survive the Epstein scandal, disgraceful as it is, and the super injunction is controversial with arguments on both sides, but absolutely not something that should be used to by the right to create division.
Re votes for16-17 years olds, we already have this in Wales and I do think this is something Labour thought would help them and as a result made it a manifesto commitment, but politics comes at you fast these days and, apart from less than half this cohort are likely to vote, it does seem the Greens and Reform are the likely beneficiaries which is absolutely something Starmer would not want
This could kill rugby union in Australia
After the "Women in Burkas are a security threat to the UK", earlier this week she put out a video about "Violence and crime in Greenway Road, Runcorn?"
I recently spoke with business owners and residents on Greenway Road. Yet another example of HMOs packed with illegal immigrants.
Locals are fed up with anti-social behaviour, criminal activity, and the sheer disruption these properties are causing. It’s making people’s lives a misery...
https://x.com/SarahForRuncorn/status/1944277520129695868
Now we have "B*ll*cks, lady" coming in from several directions in the local community:
1 - Residents of 30-40 years' standing saying "Nope".
2 - A group of about 35 locals putting out a joint photograph to say it's not like that, it's clean and peaceful and a lovely place to be.
3 - Local churchwarden of the parish church on the street, teaching assistant, pointing out that local HMOs are "mainly White British", writing an open letter of refutation on behalf of the community. It takes quite a lot to get them involved.
4 - Local Police PCC saying 'we have no regular such reports, nor do residents report such a concern". Local Chiref Inspector says it is a safe place.
https://www.runcornandwidnesworld.co.uk/news/25320701.residents-hit-back-mp-claims-street-blighted-crime/
Pochin has doubled down, and attacked most of them.
I think she's queering her pitch (or patch), and that coming out with this kind of stuff is not going to help her at the next Election. I can see it perhaps working for Lee Anderson in Ashfield, because he is a real local who has been here nearly as long as I have had links and would have gone and found out before having his rant. I can't see being a bollocks-merchant working for Pochin there.
Do Reform UK Central put out template press releases with gaps to fill in?
lol