Is @williamglenn banned? Why? Just for being unwoke? Or did he do something actually bad?
TBF it is a handy time to be banned. If he times it right the Trump-Epstein scandal will have washed over so he won't have to back pedal on his Trump admiration.
With Congress going into recess for six weeks, everyone will forget all this stuff all over again.
Q: Ghislaine Maxwell has been arrested on allegations of child sex trafficking. Why would you wish such a person well?
Politics is both boring and depressing at the moment, has been for some time now. Wit has turned into witlessness on all sides. No one believes anything that any of them are saying.
Its hardly surprising that the great British public are looking elsewhere for their entertainment. Even to Coldplay.
Yet the truth is if you ask "the great British public" what "the answer is" all you get is incoherent gibberish which usually starts with tax rises for everyone except me and swingeing cuts for everyone else who uses the services I don't use.
That's the problem with trying to be honest - the electorate don't want politicians to be dishonest but they don't want them to be honest either.
Top politics is about shaping the future anew. No-one has seriously tried a reasonable degree of honesty for quite a long time. Political distortion and lying has dominated the culture for many years. Peter Oborne's book The Rise of Political Lying was published 20 years ago. And he wrote it at a point many years into the new manipulative culture being in place. It's a long time since truth was tried. When you are 17% in the polls and used to dominate the political scene could be a good moment for the Tories to give it a try.
I do agree it's about "the vision thing" and if I were a Conservative. Lib Dem or Green, I'd be thinking hard about how I envisage governing Britain in the 2030s and beyond.
What does that Britain look like? How does it work? How does it operate in the best interests of all its citizens? The first thing is probably to tear up past policies and even ideologies and look at practical solutions to problems.
We've seen many times conservatism and liberalism re-invent themselves to take account of societal and technological changes. That doesn't mean abandoning core principles but recognising adaptation and evolution.
To be honest, the first thing the Conservatives need to do is be more willing to undertake a profound mea culpa - Sunak started that on the day after the election but it was never going to be enough to turn the page in and of itself.
I think one interesting area will be debate around what "a Christian Society" will mean in 25 years. And that, of course, may be of zero interest to some.
So, what will a "Humanist" or a "Secularist" society look like? I'm not sure if either of those can do a broad analysis, since both are quite heavily defined in their current incarnations by being anti-religion.
In the WW2 era, there was a lot of thinking going on around people like Archbishop William Temple, who in his 1942 book "Christianity and Social Order (1942)" outlined the Welfare State in reaction to social conditions in the previous years. In WW2 "what comes after we are through this" was a theme - also with the Atlantic Charter between Churchill and Roosevelt in 1941 setting groundwork for the UN.
It's almost "necessity is the mother of invention".
There are a lot of other places it will need to come from too in a pluralistic society.
For the British Evangelical tradition, in the later 20C thinking about society was moved forward by John Stott, as a central figure. Now Sir Paul Marshall is in that arena. Personally I'm not sure his tradition has what it takes - personal view, being too close to USA thinking.
I think we may expect some interesting publications from women Bishops and other female figures, who are much more prominent compared to say 1965. But I'm not sure where else reflection and ideas will emerge from.
Politics is both boring and depressing at the moment, has been for some time now. Wit has turned into witlessness on all sides. No one believes anything that any of them are saying.
Its hardly surprising that the great British public are looking elsewhere for their entertainment. Even to Coldplay.
Yet the truth is if you ask "the great British public" what "the answer is" all you get is incoherent gibberish which usually starts with tax rises for everyone except me and swingeing cuts for everyone else who uses the services I don't use.
That's the problem with trying to be honest - the electorate don't want politicians to be dishonest but they don't want them to be honest either.
Top politics is about shaping the future anew. No-one has seriously tried a reasonable degree of honesty for quite a long time. Political distortion and lying has dominated the culture for many years. Peter Oborne's book The Rise of Political Lying was published 20 years ago. And he wrote it at a point many years into the new manipulative culture being in place. It's a long time since truth was tried. When you are 17% in the polls and used to dominate the political scene could be a good moment for the Tories to give it a try.
I do agree it's about "the vision thing" and if I were a Conservative. Lib Dem or Green, I'd be thinking hard about how I envisage governing Britain in the 2030s and beyond.
What does that Britain look like? How does it work? How does it operate in the best interests of all its citizens? The first thing is probably to tear up past policies and even ideologies and look at practical solutions to problems.
We've seen many times conservatism and liberalism re-invent themselves to take account of societal and technological changes. That doesn't mean abandoning core principles but recognising adaptation and evolution.
To be honest, the first thing the Conservatives need to do is be more willing to undertake a profound mea culpa - Sunak started that on the day after the election but it was never going to be enough to turn the page in and of itself.
Agree. The mea culpa is important of course, but it has to be about something, showing not only what they got wrong, but how they plan to put it right. Core principles are good too, but at this point I want clarity as to the fundamental philosophy of Conservatism in a way which, without straw men, distinguishes it from Labour, LD and Reform. at the moment I don't know what that is. Part of the reason I don't know what it is, is that all parties in fact agree (without saying so) on the very large managed state as in all western european countries, which amounts to social democracy with tinkering at the edges. Social democracy is what spends all the discretionary money (health, safety net, pensions, free education to 18, NATO, law and order, infrastructure) and, as Reform will find out, cannot be reduced much.
So, what would Conservatism be which is radically different?
We owe £Trillions in climate reparations apparently.
Charities and lobbyists are pushing for it.
By some happy coincidence the same charities would get to administer it.
Just tell this court, who the article says is advisory, to GFT.
Can we just declare national bankruptcy, then, and wipe out our accumulated debt ?
Would that absolve us of our liability for slavery reparations too which a few in Labour are pushing for and there is an APPG group dedicated to the issue.
Meanwhile Clive Lewis wants to cap energy prices to keep food prices down.
How many years in opposition did Labour have to think things through ?
According to "Get In", they picked the most eyecatching policies just because they were eyecatching, without thinking on how to provide them. Slop electioneering. And now they are in Govt they have to do them, and they don't know how. Consequently we have or will have have expensive electricity, price controls, high taxes, large inward migration and a steady stream of rich haporths buggering off to Dubai to use drugged prostitutes in buildings built by defacto slave labour in a country where you get whipped for being gay.
"Police have described claims they bussed anti-racism demonstrators to a protest outside a hotel housing asylum seekers as “categorically wrong” after Nigel Farage and others repeated the allegation.
The response from the Essex police chief constable, Ben-Julian Harrington, came as his force said 10 people had now been arrested in connection with violence that erupted after protests outside the hotel in Epping."
"Police have described claims they bussed anti-racism demonstrators to a protest outside a hotel housing asylum seekers as “categorically wrong” after Nigel Farage and others repeated the allegation.
The response from the Essex police chief constable, Ben-Julian Harrington, came as his force said 10 people had now been arrested in connection with violence that erupted after protests outside the hotel in Epping."
Er, weren't they filmed moving the protestors from the station to the hotel?
"Essex Police admitted overnight that it had escorted pro-migrant protesters to the Bell Hotel in Epping.
It had initially denied that it had brought activists from the group Stand Up to Racism to the site amid claims by anti-migrant protesters that the arrival of counter-demonstrators sparked violence on July 17.
It backtracked after being shown footage of the protesters being escorted by officers from a nearby station to the hotel."
Politics is both boring and depressing at the moment, has been for some time now. Wit has turned into witlessness on all sides. No one believes anything that any of them are saying.
Its hardly surprising that the great British public are looking elsewhere for their entertainment. Even to Coldplay.
Yet the truth is if you ask "the great British public" what "the answer is" all you get is incoherent gibberish which usually starts with tax rises for everyone except me and swingeing cuts for everyone else who uses the services I don't use.
That's the problem with trying to be honest - the electorate don't want politicians to be dishonest but they don't want them to be honest either.
Top politics is about shaping the future anew. No-one has seriously tried a reasonable degree of honesty for quite a long time. Political distortion and lying has dominated the culture for many years. Peter Oborne's book The Rise of Political Lying was published 20 years ago. And he wrote it at a point many years into the new manipulative culture being in place. It's a long time since truth was tried. When you are 17% in the polls and used to dominate the political scene could be a good moment for the Tories to give it a try.
I do agree it's about "the vision thing" and if I were a Conservative. Lib Dem or Green, I'd be thinking hard about how I envisage governing Britain in the 2030s and beyond.
What does that Britain look like? How does it work? How does it operate in the best interests of all its citizens? The first thing is probably to tear up past policies and even ideologies and look at practical solutions to problems.
We've seen many times conservatism and liberalism re-invent themselves to take account of societal and technological changes. That doesn't mean abandoning core principles but recognising adaptation and evolution.
To be honest, the first thing the Conservatives need to do is be more willing to undertake a profound mea culpa - Sunak started that on the day after the election but it was never going to be enough to turn the page in and of itself.
I think one interesting area will be debate around what "a Christian Society" will mean in 25 years. And that, of course, may be of zero interest to some.
So, what will a "Humanist" or a "Secularist" society look like? I'm not sure if either of those can do a broad analysis, since both are quite heavily defined in their current incarnations by being anti-religion.
In the WW2 era, there was a lot of thinking going on around people like Archbishop William Temple, who in his 1942 book "Christianity and Social Order (1942)" outlined the Welfare State in reaction to social conditions in the previous years. In WW2 "what comes after we are through this" was a theme - also with the Atlantic Charter between Churchill and Roosevelt in 1941 setting groundwork for the UN.
It's almost "necessity is the mother of invention".
There are a lot of other places it will need to come from too in a pluralistic society.
For the British Evangelical tradition, in the later 20C thinking about society was moved forward by John Stott, as a central figure. Now Sir Paul Marshall is in that arena. Personally I'm not sure his tradition has what it takes - personal view, being too close to USA thinking.
I think we may expect some interesting publications from women Bishops and other female figures, who are much more prominent compared to say 1965. But I'm not sure where else reflection and ideas will emerge from.
A fascinating set of questions. A couple of points in response.
Evangelical thinking includes people who would like to break out of the cage but not all that many. To take an example, many of the loudest voices in the evangelical movement not only oppose acknowledging gay relationships in an ecclesiastical setting, but are clear that all of them are forbidden and sinful in all circumstances. This is strong enough to split the CoE, and lots of people intend to go to the stake over it. Evangelicalism has not really recovered from the 60s sexual revolution and has not found a place to rest, though I think it has much to offer (I am not one.)
Secondly, thinking about religion and society used to take for granted the Jewish community as a respected subset of the majority religion of Christianity. Now, the only possible way of looking at religion in societal terms is to include Islam along with the other two as an Abrahamic ethical monotheistic set. (What could possibly go wrong?)
Interesting books and ideas from women bishops? Don't hold your breath. When it comes to ideas Elizabeth Anscombe, Iris Murdoch and Philippa Foot are secure in their position with no threat from the current female bench, I am sorry to say. And the men are no better.
We owe £Trillions in climate reparations apparently.
Charities and lobbyists are pushing for it.
By some happy coincidence the same charities would get to administer it.
Just tell this court, who the article says is advisory, to GFT.
Can we just declare national bankruptcy, then, and wipe out our accumulated debt ?
Would that absolve us of our liability for slavery reparations too which a few in Labour are pushing for and there is an APPG group dedicated to the issue.
Or would we need to do it twice ?
Starmer can't wait to get his hand in his our pockets for both I bet.
Politics is both boring and depressing at the moment, has been for some time now. Wit has turned into witlessness on all sides. No one believes anything that any of them are saying.
Its hardly surprising that the great British public are looking elsewhere for their entertainment. Even to Coldplay.
Yet the truth is if you ask "the great British public" what "the answer is" all you get is incoherent gibberish which usually starts with tax rises for everyone except me and swingeing cuts for everyone else who uses the services I don't use.
That's the problem with trying to be honest - the electorate don't want politicians to be dishonest but they don't want them to be honest either.
Top politics is about shaping the future anew. No-one has seriously tried a reasonable degree of honesty for quite a long time. Political distortion and lying has dominated the culture for many years. Peter Oborne's book The Rise of Political Lying was published 20 years ago. And he wrote it at a point many years into the new manipulative culture being in place. It's a long time since truth was tried. When you are 17% in the polls and used to dominate the political scene could be a good moment for the Tories to give it a try.
I do agree it's about "the vision thing" and if I were a Conservative. Lib Dem or Green, I'd be thinking hard about how I envisage governing Britain in the 2030s and beyond.
What does that Britain look like? How does it work? How does it operate in the best interests of all its citizens? The first thing is probably to tear up past policies and even ideologies and look at practical solutions to problems.
We've seen many times conservatism and liberalism re-invent themselves to take account of societal and technological changes. That doesn't mean abandoning core principles but recognising adaptation and evolution.
To be honest, the first thing the Conservatives need to do is be more willing to undertake a profound mea culpa - Sunak started that on the day after the election but it was never going to be enough to turn the page in and of itself.
Agree. The mea culpa is important of course, but it has to be about something, showing not only what they got wrong, but how they plan to put it right. Core principles are good too, but at this point I want clarity as to the fundamental philosophy of Conservatism in a way which, without straw men, distinguishes it from Labour, LD and Reform. at the moment I don't know what that is. Part of the reason I don't know what it is, is that all parties in fact agree (without saying so) on the very large managed state as in all western european countries, which amounts to social democracy with tinkering at the edges. Social democracy is what spends all the discretionary money (health, safety net, pensions, free education to 18, NATO, law and order, infrastructure) and, as Reform will find out, cannot be reduced much.
So, what would Conservatism be which is radically different?
I'm not a Conservative though I sense you were.
What we came to call Thatcherism was the radical solution to the cul-de-sac of Butskellism and it may be we need to think in similarly radical terms if we believe the social democratic State has come to a dead end.
We are an ageing population and a "large managed state" works well for many. Improvements in medical technology have prolonged life (though not always its quality) yet we still apply 20th century mindsets to the 21st century world. The world of factories, shifts, class and conformity casts a long shadow but that world is disappearing or fragmenting.
Our interactions with and dependency on elements of "the State" to deliver basic services are a cornerstone of our life and society and I'd like to see an honest debate about what kind of State we want and how much we are willing to pay for it.
"Police have described claims they bussed anti-racism demonstrators to a protest outside a hotel housing asylum seekers as “categorically wrong” after Nigel Farage and others repeated the allegation.
The response from the Essex police chief constable, Ben-Julian Harrington, came as his force said 10 people had now been arrested in connection with violence that erupted after protests outside the hotel in Epping."
Queue of people waiting to pay for their goods at Greggs in Becontree.
Meanwhile two roadmen load up a carrier bag and leave.
As I said before, why pay and follow the rules when others don’t with no comeback.
I remember being told by a Lib Dem (obvs) here that I was the problem for merely posing the moral dilemma. Not the tea leaves for the theft 😂😂😂😂
If you forget to insure your car or tax it by a day, or forget to renew your license you get hauled into court and fined, usually via SJP where the magistrate will ignore any mitigation. Yet this carries on, effectively decriminalised.
Are you going to name the LD or provide the link because that sounds exceedingly unlikely or out of context.
The reason for paying is because it is the right thing to do. Just because some toerag doesn't, does not mean it is ok for you not to. Of course it helps as a deterrent if they don't get away with it and that the police and courts enforced the law as a deterrent, which clearly isn't happening as this is so blatant. Don't think you can blame the LDs for that failure.
You do seem to have an irrational hatred of the LDs, blaming them for anything and everything.
Commercial restrictions by betting operators ... From a total of 14,923,840 active customer accounts, operators reported 643,779 accounts restricted in some form – a rate of 4.31 per cent. ... 25.42 per cent of active customers are in profit vs. 46.78 per cent of restricted customers 72.54 per cent of active customers are in loss vs. 51.29 per cent of restricted customers. https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/blog/post/commercial-restrictions-by-betting-operators
The anti-Gambling Commission has uncovered some interesting findings although I'm not holding my breath waiting for action.
"Police have described claims they bussed anti-racism demonstrators to a protest outside a hotel housing asylum seekers as “categorically wrong” after Nigel Farage and others repeated the allegation.
The response from the Essex police chief constable, Ben-Julian Harrington, came as his force said 10 people had now been arrested in connection with violence that erupted after protests outside the hotel in Epping."
We’re back to “technically true but very misleading” statements.
The police didn’t “bus” the counter-protestors, they merely escorted to them to the site in other vehicles, no busses involved.
Yet we wonder why trust in media and authority is at an all-time low.
"Essex police issued a statement on Wednesday saying officers organised a foot cordon around protesters on their way to exercise their right to protest. Later, some people who were deemed to be at risk when they were surrounded by groups of men who had attacked police were taken away in police vans, but the force said officers “categorically did not drive any counter-protesters to the site on any occasion”."
"Police have described claims they bussed anti-racism demonstrators to a protest outside a hotel housing asylum seekers as “categorically wrong” after Nigel Farage and others repeated the allegation.
The response from the Essex police chief constable, Ben-Julian Harrington, came as his force said 10 people had now been arrested in connection with violence that erupted after protests outside the hotel in Epping."
We’re back to “technically true but very misleading” statements.
The police didn’t “bus” the counter-protestors, they merely escorted to them to the site in other vehicles, no busses involved.
Yet we wonder why trust in media and authority is at an all-time low.
The police, like the judiciary, have to be swept away, as soon as Reform wins. Sack every single policeman/woman above a certain level, ditto the judges and lawyers. They are rancid with lies and corroded by Wokeness, they cannot be saved. Get rid
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
For once, you're really the expert in this field.
What does that even mean? Is it a hint?
I'm asking a simple question. A regular and much beloved commenter, albeit controversial, is banned
If he did something obviously wrong, fair enough, but quite a few of us would like to know what it is, if only so we don't fall foul of the same rule
I have sympathy for your question, but generally it is pretty easy to avoid getting banned plus you might be asking the mods to effectively state the thing that shouldn't be repeated.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
For once, you're really the expert in this field.
What does that even mean? Is it a hint?
I'm asking a simple question. A regular and much beloved commenter, albeit controversial, is banned
If he did something obviously wrong, fair enough, but quite a few of us would like to know what it is, if only so we don't fall foul of the same rule
I have sympathy for your question, but generally it is pretty easy to avoid getting banned plus you might be asking the mods to effectively state the thing that shouldn't be repeated.
So all they have to say is "he mentioned the non-permitted subject X" - they are not then going to ban themselves are they? Unless PB has turned into the Jehovah-stoning scene from Life of Brian. And then we are all clear
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
So what was the bleedin' line he crossed, then? This is ridic
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
For once, you're really the expert in this field.
What does that even mean? Is it a hint?
I'm asking a simple question. A regular and much beloved commenter, albeit controversial, is banned
If he did something obviously wrong, fair enough, but quite a few of us would like to know what it is, if only so we don't fall foul of the same rule
I just meant that you have more insight as to the bans process than most. Who knows. The mods usually have good reason. You'd have to bet that he'd be back at some point.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
I rather like the PB unwritten rules. This is after all a Great British website.
Earlier today there was a link to a NS article about Badenoch. The NS have released a video (podcast format unfortunately) to accompany it. I've posted links below and included the earlier Starmer article as a counterpoint
Queue of people waiting to pay for their goods at Greggs in Becontree.
Meanwhile two roadmen load up a carrier bag and leave.
As I said before, why pay and follow the rules when others don’t with no comeback.
I remember being told by a Lib Dem (obvs) here that I was the problem for merely posing the moral dilemma. Not the tea leaves for the theft 😂😂😂😂
If you forget to insure your car or tax it by a day, or forget to renew your license you get hauled into court and fined, usually via SJP where the magistrate will ignore any mitigation. Yet this carries on, effectively decriminalised.
The uncomfortable truth is shoplifting didn't begin in July 2024 - filming people shoplifting is a thing given most people have a mobile phone.
Let's turn the question round - what would you do if you saw shoplifting taking place? Lidl have for example put in different automated tills with receipts needing to be scanned but that's far from foolproof and if a couple of blokes want to come in and steal, the security guard and staff can only do so much. Should we give them tasers or guns and tell them they can shoot shoplifters in cold blood?
A shade draconian methinks and likely counter-productive. I suppose if we doubled the number of Police (who? how? from where (immigration perhaps?)), that would increase street presence and the number of detectives able to pursue such criminal activity.
Ultimately, it comes down to convincing people acts like shoplifting and fare evasion aren't risk free and the consequences of being caught (naming and shaming, custodial sentences?) far outweigh the dubious advantage of getting free food and free travel.
Jenrick can huff and puff to his heart's content - the Conservatives had no answers during their time in Government and they've no answers now.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?
"Police have described claims they bussed anti-racism demonstrators to a protest outside a hotel housing asylum seekers as “categorically wrong” after Nigel Farage and others repeated the allegation.
The response from the Essex police chief constable, Ben-Julian Harrington, came as his force said 10 people had now been arrested in connection with violence that erupted after protests outside the hotel in Epping."
We’re back to “technically true but very misleading” statements.
The police didn’t “bus” the counter-protestors, they merely escorted to them to the site in other vehicles, no busses involved.
Yet we wonder why trust in media and authority is at an all-time low.
The police, like the judiciary, have to be swept away, as soon as Reform wins. Sack every single policeman/woman above a certain level, ditto the judges and lawyers. They are rancid with lies and corroded by Wokeness, they cannot be saved. Get rid
You have just assumed that statement is accurate and then ranted accordingly. I listened to the head of Essex police statement today. Now he could be lying through his teeth I suppose and that wouldn't be unheard of, but he said something completely different to that. Why do you jump to the conclusion the statement you want to be true is the accurate one without any supporting evidence?
We owe £Trillions in climate reparations apparently.
Charities and lobbyists are pushing for it.
By some happy coincidence the same charities would get to administer it.
Just tell this court, who the article says is advisory, to GFT.
Can we just declare national bankruptcy, then, and wipe out our accumulated debt ?
Would that absolve us of our liability for slavery reparations too which a few in Labour are pushing for and there is an APPG group dedicated to the issue.
Or would we need to do it twice ?
Starmer can't wait to get his hand in his our pockets for both I bet.
It will help him get a job after being PM in a highly paid, non value added, role.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
That's interesting. Is this for AR7? Think it was AR 5 where the government received no bids for offshore wind
I think the developers have got Miliband where they want him, he is nailed to the offshore wind mast and needs to put an attractive offer out for tender
Commercial restrictions by betting operators ... From a total of 14,923,840 active customer accounts, operators reported 643,779 accounts restricted in some form – a rate of 4.31 per cent. ... 25.42 per cent of active customers are in profit vs. 46.78 per cent of restricted customers 72.54 per cent of active customers are in loss vs. 51.29 per cent of restricted customers. https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/blog/post/commercial-restrictions-by-betting-operators
The anti-Gambling Commission has uncovered some interesting findings although I'm not holding my breath waiting for action.
What proportion of accounts closed for winning over the years are active........
"Police have described claims they bussed anti-racism demonstrators to a protest outside a hotel housing asylum seekers as “categorically wrong” after Nigel Farage and others repeated the allegation.
The response from the Essex police chief constable, Ben-Julian Harrington, came as his force said 10 people had now been arrested in connection with violence that erupted after protests outside the hotel in Epping."
We’re back to “technically true but very misleading” statements.
The police didn’t “bus” the counter-protestors, they merely escorted to them to the site in other vehicles, no busses involved.
Yet we wonder why trust in media and authority is at an all-time low.
The police, like the judiciary, have to be swept away, as soon as Reform wins. Sack every single policeman/woman above a certain level, ditto the judges and lawyers. They are rancid with lies and corroded by Wokeness, they cannot be saved. Get rid
You have just assumed that statement is accurate and then ranted accordingly. I listened to the head of Essex police statement today. Now he could be lying through his teeth I suppose and that wouldn't be unheard of, but he said something completely different to that. Why do you jump to the conclusion the statement you want to be true is the accurate one without any supporting evidence?
Because this is the Telegraph's account of what happened
"Essex Police admitted overnight that it had escorted pro-migrant protesters to the Bell Hotel in Epping.
It had initially denied that it had brought activists from the group Stand Up to Racism to the site amid claims by anti-migrant protesters that the arrival of counter-demonstrators sparked violence on July 17.
It backtracked after being shown footage of the protesters being escorted by officers from a nearby station to the hotel."
Queue of people waiting to pay for their goods at Greggs in Becontree.
Meanwhile two roadmen load up a carrier bag and leave.
As I said before, why pay and follow the rules when others don’t with no comeback.
I remember being told by a Lib Dem (obvs) here that I was the problem for merely posing the moral dilemma. Not the tea leaves for the theft 😂😂😂😂
If you forget to insure your car or tax it by a day, or forget to renew your license you get hauled into court and fined, usually via SJP where the magistrate will ignore any mitigation. Yet this carries on, effectively decriminalised.
Are you going to name the LD or provide the link because that sounds exceedingly unlikely or out of context.
The reason for paying is because it is the right thing to do. Just because some toerag doesn't, does not mean it is ok for you not to. Of course it helps as a deterrent if they don't get away with it and that the police and courts enforced the law as a deterrent, which clearly isn't happening as this is so blatant. Don't think you can blame the LDs for that failure.
You do seem to have an irrational hatred of the LDs, blaming them for anything and everything.
You are forgetting that the pesky libs have not just been in continuous power for the last thirty years but also get to run the police, courts, schools, treasury and BBC, of course they must be to blame.
"Police have described claims they bussed anti-racism demonstrators to a protest outside a hotel housing asylum seekers as “categorically wrong” after Nigel Farage and others repeated the allegation.
The response from the Essex police chief constable, Ben-Julian Harrington, came as his force said 10 people had now been arrested in connection with violence that erupted after protests outside the hotel in Epping."
We’re back to “technically true but very misleading” statements.
The police didn’t “bus” the counter-protestors, they merely escorted to them to the site in other vehicles, no busses involved.
Yet we wonder why trust in media and authority is at an all-time low.
The police, like the judiciary, have to be swept away, as soon as Reform wins. Sack every single policeman/woman above a certain level, ditto the judges and lawyers. They are rancid with lies and corroded by Wokeness, they cannot be saved. Get rid
Farage needs to establish a Committee of Public Safety, if Reform win.
Queue of people waiting to pay for their goods at Greggs in Becontree.
Meanwhile two roadmen load up a carrier bag and leave.
As I said before, why pay and follow the rules when others don’t with no comeback.
I remember being told by a Lib Dem (obvs) here that I was the problem for merely posing the moral dilemma. Not the tea leaves for the theft 😂😂😂😂
If you forget to insure your car or tax it by a day, or forget to renew your license you get hauled into court and fined, usually via SJP where the magistrate will ignore any mitigation. Yet this carries on, effectively decriminalised.
The uncomfortable truth is shoplifting didn't begin in July 2024 - filming people shoplifting is a thing given most people have a mobile phone.
Let's turn the question round - what would you do if you saw shoplifting taking place? Lidl have for example put in different automated tills with receipts needing to be scanned but that's far from foolproof and if a couple of blokes want to come in and steal, the security guard and staff can only do so much. Should we give them tasers or guns and tell them they can shoot shoplifters in cold blood?
A shade draconian methinks and likely counter-productive. I suppose if we doubled the number of Police (who? how? from where (immigration perhaps?)), that would increase street presence and the number of detectives able to pursue such criminal activity.
Ultimately, it comes down to convincing people acts like shoplifting and fare evasion aren't risk free and the consequences of being caught (naming and shaming, custodial sentences?) far outweigh the dubious advantage of getting free food and free travel.
Jenrick can huff and puff to his heart's content - the Conservatives had no answers during their time in Government and they've no answers now.
Once again I say this is easily remedied. New forms of corporal punishment. Taser them daily for a week, and they won't shoplift again
I suspect Afghans comes under "immigration", so in fact it is top
But the coverup would be under the Afghan story.
If you look at YouGov’s post they have used AI to collate this and AI is never wrong.
Eh.
Yougov seems to be doing a lot of what could be viewed as Government damage limitation at present. That cringe-making leading question on Afghanistan being the most recent example. They were telling us that most people had nothing but sympathy for the rehomed, now they're telling us that nobody cares. Not sure I set an awful lot of store by either verdict.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?
I have a new concept for you.
Sit down. Get ready. Brace. Put a mouth guard in. This may hurt.
Some ideas are unacceptable to decent people. Even when they are just ideas.
Politics is both boring and depressing at the moment, has been for some time now. Wit has turned into witlessness on all sides. No one believes anything that any of them are saying.
Its hardly surprising that the great British public are looking elsewhere for their entertainment. Even to Coldplay.
Yet the truth is if you ask "the great British public" what "the answer is" all you get is incoherent gibberish which usually starts with tax rises for everyone except me and swingeing cuts for everyone else who uses the services I don't use.
That's the problem with trying to be honest - the electorate don't want politicians to be dishonest but they don't want them to be honest either.
Theresa May tried to be honest about one particular area of policy during an election. It damn nearly cost her job, and the issue she highlighted is still being pushed into the long grass eight years later, despite the problem itself continuing to get bigger.
May’s issue was she revealed it in the middle of an election campaign which meant it was instantly destroyed in point scoring.
A lot of this stuff needs to be brought up in advance, if Labour had called out Hunt’s NI cuts as the unaffordable bribe that they were Labour wouldn’t be in its current budget mess
Absolutely correct, they would be in opposition instead.
A useful reminder to us PB political obsessives that nearly 50% of population actively tries to avoid news.
Theo Bertram @theobertram · 5h Farage gets what most politicians don't: video is how you reach people. (Mobile/portrait format, with classic TikTok-style stitching).
46 per cent of Brits say they actively avoid news; among those that do consume news, 65 per cent do so by watching videos on a smartphone.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?
I have a new concept for you.
Sit down. Get ready. Brace. Put a mouth guard in. This may hurt.
Some ideas are unacceptable to decent people. Even when they are just ideas.
So who are the "decent people". Who defines them? What is decent? I have a strange idea that you will be one of THE DECENT and those who you disagree with, not
It is lucky there is a ban against foul language because I would now submit you to a finely crafted fusillade of the same. As it is I shall restrict myself to noting that you are morally repulsive
"Police have described claims they bussed anti-racism demonstrators to a protest outside a hotel housing asylum seekers as “categorically wrong” after Nigel Farage and others repeated the allegation.
The response from the Essex police chief constable, Ben-Julian Harrington, came as his force said 10 people had now been arrested in connection with violence that erupted after protests outside the hotel in Epping."
We’re back to “technically true but very misleading” statements.
The police didn’t “bus” the counter-protestors, they merely escorted to them to the site in other vehicles, no busses involved.
Yet we wonder why trust in media and authority is at an all-time low.
The police, like the judiciary, have to be swept away, as soon as Reform wins. Sack every single policeman/woman above a certain level, ditto the judges and lawyers. They are rancid with lies and corroded by Wokeness, they cannot be saved. Get rid
You have just assumed that statement is accurate and then ranted accordingly. I listened to the head of Essex police statement today. Now he could be lying through his teeth I suppose and that wouldn't be unheard of, but he said something completely different to that. Why do you jump to the conclusion the statement you want to be true is the accurate one without any supporting evidence?
Because this is the Telegraph's account of what happened
"Essex Police admitted overnight that it had escorted pro-migrant protesters to the Bell Hotel in Epping.
It had initially denied that it had brought activists from the group Stand Up to Racism to the site amid claims by anti-migrant protesters that the arrival of counter-demonstrators sparked violence on July 17.
It backtracked after being shown footage of the protesters being escorted by officers from a nearby station to the hotel."
A good 25 minute uphill walk from Epping Station to that Hotel. I just hope that the takings at the Forest Gate PH on the other side of Bell Common haven't been damaged by all those protests and counter protests.
Politics is both boring and depressing at the moment, has been for some time now. Wit has turned into witlessness on all sides. No one believes anything that any of them are saying.
Its hardly surprising that the great British public are looking elsewhere for their entertainment. Even to Coldplay.
Yet the truth is if you ask "the great British public" what "the answer is" all you get is incoherent gibberish which usually starts with tax rises for everyone except me and swingeing cuts for everyone else who uses the services I don't use.
That's the problem with trying to be honest - the electorate don't want politicians to be dishonest but they don't want them to be honest either.
Top politics is about shaping the future anew. No-one has seriously tried a reasonable degree of honesty for quite a long time. Political distortion and lying has dominated the culture for many years. Peter Oborne's book The Rise of Political Lying was published 20 years ago. And he wrote it at a point many years into the new manipulative culture being in place. It's a long time since truth was tried. When you are 17% in the polls and used to dominate the political scene could be a good moment for the Tories to give it a try.
I do agree it's about "the vision thing" and if I were a Conservative. Lib Dem or Green, I'd be thinking hard about how I envisage governing Britain in the 2030s and beyond.
What does that Britain look like? How does it work? How does it operate in the best interests of all its citizens? The first thing is probably to tear up past policies and even ideologies and look at practical solutions to problems.
We've seen many times conservatism and liberalism re-invent themselves to take account of societal and technological changes. That doesn't mean abandoning core principles but recognising adaptation and evolution.
To be honest, the first thing the Conservatives need to do is be more willing to undertake a profound mea culpa - Sunak started that on the day after the election but it was never going to be enough to turn the page in and of itself.
I think one interesting area will be debate around what "a Christian Society" will mean in 25 years. And that, of course, may be of zero interest to some.
So, what will a "Humanist" or a "Secularist" society look like? I'm not sure if either of those can do a broad analysis, since both are quite heavily defined in their current incarnations by being anti-religion.
In the WW2 era, there was a lot of thinking going on around people like Archbishop William Temple, who in his 1942 book "Christianity and Social Order (1942)" outlined the Welfare State in reaction to social conditions in the previous years. In WW2 "what comes after we are through this" was a theme - also with the Atlantic Charter between Churchill and Roosevelt in 1941 setting groundwork for the UN.
It's almost "necessity is the mother of invention".
There are a lot of other places it will need to come from too in a pluralistic society.
For the British Evangelical tradition, in the later 20C thinking about society was moved forward by John Stott, as a central figure. Now Sir Paul Marshall is in that arena. Personally I'm not sure his tradition has what it takes - personal view, being too close to USA thinking.
I think we may expect some interesting publications from women Bishops and other female figures, who are much more prominent compared to say 1965. But I'm not sure where else reflection and ideas will emerge from.
It's worrying, and maybe it's a bit "end of history", but perhaps we have reached a point where the constraints of understanding "a good society" and acknowledging that a good society costs point to here as "roughly as good as it gets". We can nudge a bit, but there aren't any realistic new ideas to move to a totally different bit of the parameter space. The radically different things proposed on right and left look like things that have been tried before and found to lead to horrible consequences.
Much the same with theology. Accept that lots of people find a huge amount in the life and teachings of Christ, but many many more don't, and you probably have to end up with the pragmatic, well-meaning mush of the established religions. Spicier forms can exist and grow exponentially, but only up to a point. The nearest to a new idea in Christianity in my lifetime has been the HTB/Paul Marshall project, and that increasingly looks like reheated public school purity and a lot of glossy advertising. Bless those who find it a blessing, but it isn't transforming the nation.
(And whilst +Guli of Chelmsford is definitely good news, and the only reason I don't want her going to Canterbury is that that job devours all who take it, her Big Idea is not to have Big Ideas. Frankly admirable.)
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
I don't really mind where the ban hammer/time out lines are, whatever the owners and mods choose is fine, but in that case it may be an improvement to show the accounts profiles that are timed out/not banned as suspended/naughty step/timed out rather than using the word banned.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
For once, you're really the expert in this field.
What does that even mean? Is it a hint?
I'm asking a simple question. A regular and much beloved commenter, albeit controversial, is banned
If he did something obviously wrong, fair enough, but quite a few of us would like to know what it is, if only so we don't fall foul of the same rule
I have sympathy for your question, but generally it is pretty easy to avoid getting banned plus you might be asking the mods to effectively state the thing that shouldn't be repeated.
So all they have to say is "he mentioned the non-permitted subject X" - they are not then going to ban themselves are they? Unless PB has turned into the Jehovah-stoning scene from Life of Brian. And then we are all clear
As I said I sympathise, and it isn't the case this time, but really they may not want to raise an issue again for legal or other reasons. And it is their site not ours, so in the end it is up to them. If we don't like it we can go elsewhere.
Queue of people waiting to pay for their goods at Greggs in Becontree.
Meanwhile two roadmen load up a carrier bag and leave.
As I said before, why pay and follow the rules when others don’t with no comeback.
I remember being told by a Lib Dem (obvs) here that I was the problem for merely posing the moral dilemma. Not the tea leaves for the theft 😂😂😂😂
If you forget to insure your car or tax it by a day, or forget to renew your license you get hauled into court and fined, usually via SJP where the magistrate will ignore any mitigation. Yet this carries on, effectively decriminalised.
The uncomfortable truth is shoplifting didn't begin in July 2024 - filming people shoplifting is a thing given most people have a mobile phone.
Let's turn the question round - what would you do if you saw shoplifting taking place? Lidl have for example put in different automated tills with receipts needing to be scanned but that's far from foolproof and if a couple of blokes want to come in and steal, the security guard and staff can only do so much. Should we give them tasers or guns and tell them they can shoot shoplifters in cold blood?
A shade draconian methinks and likely counter-productive. I suppose if we doubled the number of Police (who? how? from where (immigration perhaps?)), that would increase street presence and the number of detectives able to pursue such criminal activity.
Ultimately, it comes down to convincing people acts like shoplifting and fare evasion aren't risk free and the consequences of being caught (naming and shaming, custodial sentences?) far outweigh the dubious advantage of getting free food and free travel.
Jenrick can huff and puff to his heart's content - the Conservatives had no answers during their time in Government and they've no answers now.
Once again I say this is easily remedied. New forms of corporal punishment. Taser them daily for a week, and they won't shoplift again
The state has demonstrated its willingness to hand out harsh and disproportionate sentences when it is threatened - see the people jailed for years for tweets last year.
Do the same for people caught and convicted of shoplifting. Allow shopkeepers to tag offenders with anti theft paint and have the police round them up later.
Or we risk devolving into a country where the state is more worried about punishing mean tweets then repeated, habitual theft that makes those of us who actually pay for food/the tube/etc look like mugs.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?
I have a new concept for you.
Sit down. Get ready. Brace. Put a mouth guard in. This may hurt.
Some ideas are unacceptable to decent people. Even when they are just ideas.
So who are the "decent people". Who defines them? What is decent? I have a strange idea that you will be one of THE DECENT and those who you disagree with, not
It is lucky there is a ban against foul language because I would now submit you to a finely crafted fusillade of the same. As it is I shall restrict myself to noting that you are morally repulsive
The window is quite rightly wide, but deporting people for the crime of not being born here isn't really in it. Be a sad day when it is imo.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
Rule number one: don’t be a dumb racist trolling twat Rule number two: see rule number one
Queue of people waiting to pay for their goods at Greggs in Becontree.
Meanwhile two roadmen load up a carrier bag and leave.
As I said before, why pay and follow the rules when others don’t with no comeback.
I remember being told by a Lib Dem (obvs) here that I was the problem for merely posing the moral dilemma. Not the tea leaves for the theft 😂😂😂😂
If you forget to insure your car or tax it by a day, or forget to renew your license you get hauled into court and fined, usually via SJP where the magistrate will ignore any mitigation. Yet this carries on, effectively decriminalised.
Are you going to name the LD or provide the link because that sounds exceedingly unlikely or out of context.
The reason for paying is because it is the right thing to do. Just because some toerag doesn't, does not mean it is ok for you not to. Of course it helps as a deterrent if they don't get away with it and that the police and courts enforced the law as a deterrent, which clearly isn't happening as this is so blatant. Don't think you can blame the LDs for that failure.
You do seem to have an irrational hatred of the LDs, blaming them for anything and everything.
I dislike them nationally, although would vote for them if it was a straight choice between them and Britain First.
I also didn’t blame them for this.
My disdain for the Lib Dem’s, and I am not alone here, is no different to others disdain for other parties. Especially Reform.
Locally I quite like some of the Durham Lib Dem’s. Craig Martin is very well regarded locally. Amanda Hopgood was okay as leader of the council.
But nationally I have no time for them, they are political whores who promise anything And everything in a desperate antrempt to get votes, a couple of the new intake are impressive but the rest are just bland dullards repeating meaningless platitudes and they have a leader who acts like a poor Norman Wisdom tribute act. Indeed pratfalls are his speciality.
Queue of people waiting to pay for their goods at Greggs in Becontree.
Meanwhile two roadmen load up a carrier bag and leave.
As I said before, why pay and follow the rules when others don’t with no comeback.
I remember being told by a Lib Dem (obvs) here that I was the problem for merely posing the moral dilemma. Not the tea leaves for the theft 😂😂😂😂
If you forget to insure your car or tax it by a day, or forget to renew your license you get hauled into court and fined, usually via SJP where the magistrate will ignore any mitigation. Yet this carries on, effectively decriminalised.
The uncomfortable truth is shoplifting didn't begin in July 2024 - filming people shoplifting is a thing given most people have a mobile phone.
Let's turn the question round - what would you do if you saw shoplifting taking place? Lidl have for example put in different automated tills with receipts needing to be scanned but that's far from foolproof and if a couple of blokes want to come in and steal, the security guard and staff can only do so much. Should we give them tasers or guns and tell them they can shoot shoplifters in cold blood?
A shade draconian methinks and likely counter-productive. I suppose if we doubled the number of Police (who? how? from where (immigration perhaps?)), that would increase street presence and the number of detectives able to pursue such criminal activity.
Ultimately, it comes down to convincing people acts like shoplifting and fare evasion aren't risk free and the consequences of being caught (naming and shaming, custodial sentences?) far outweigh the dubious advantage of getting free food and free travel.
Jenrick can huff and puff to his heart's content - the Conservatives had no answers during their time in Government and they've no answers now.
Once again I say this is easily remedied. New forms of corporal punishment. Taser them daily for a week, and they won't shoplift again
The state has demonstrated its willingness to hand out harsh and disproportionate sentences when it is threatened - see the people jailed for years for tweets last year.
Do the same for people caught and convicted of shoplifting. Allow shopkeepers to tag offenders with anti theft paint and have the police round them up later.
Or we risk devolving into a country where the state is more worried about punishing mean tweets then repeated, habitual theft that makes those of us who actually pay for food/the tube/etc look like mugs.
Yes. Shoplifting may seem like a trivial offence, but like all these offences, if it goes entirely unpunished then the social contract shatters. Why should anyone obey the law, pay for a ticket, buy their food, cough up their taxes, when the state turns a blind eye to those that don't do this, and indeed seems to treat the generally law-abiding more harshly
This is how an Establishment loses all legitimacy. That is now happening in the UK, and it is happening fast. The government no longer rules by consent so it must do so by force. As Prof David Betz has said, we are on the road to something very dark
And on top of that, we have the Afghan scandal. We now know the government will eagerly lie to us, for years, on the most profound and controversial subjects, and could be lying right now, indeed it probably is, and we are forbidden from even discussing the lies?
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
I don't really mind where the ban hammer/time out lines are, whatever the owners and mods choose is fine, but in that case it may be an improvement to show the accounts profiles that are timed out/not banned as suspended/naughty step/timed out rather than using the word banned.
The problem is that Vanilla doesn't have that functionality. So banning and unbanning happens manually. But maybe we should have a public page, where we note who is in the "sin bin".
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
Rule number one: don’t be a dumb racist trolling twat Rule number two: see rule number one
Wait, you called someone a twat. I thought this was bannable? Am I now allowed to call you a twat?
Commercial restrictions by betting operators ... From a total of 14,923,840 active customer accounts, operators reported 643,779 accounts restricted in some form – a rate of 4.31 per cent. ... 25.42 per cent of active customers are in profit vs. 46.78 per cent of restricted customers 72.54 per cent of active customers are in loss vs. 51.29 per cent of restricted customers. https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/blog/post/commercial-restrictions-by-betting-operators
The anti-Gambling Commission has uncovered some interesting findings although I'm not holding my breath waiting for action.
What proportion of accounts closed for winning over the years are active........
The second most common form of restriction was account closures, with 2.23 per cent of active accounts being closed for commercial reasons. This applies to 51.69 percent of restricted accounts. Given the overlap in the figures, a large proportion of accounts will be subject to stake factoring prior to being permanently closed. Several operators report not using account closures for commercial reasons at all. https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/blog/post/commercial-restrictions-by-betting-operators
One reason for not closing accounts is that the bookie can report to shareholders that they have more active accounts, even if some are restricted to buttons.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
So he came out with political opinions you don't like. That's it?
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
Rule number one: don’t be a dumb racist trolling twat Rule number two: see rule number one
Wait, you called someone a twat. I thought this was bannable? Am I now allowed to call you a twat?
“Don’t be a twat” is not calling anyone a twat. Are you really that dumb?
Politics is both boring and depressing at the moment, has been for some time now. Wit has turned into witlessness on all sides. No one believes anything that any of them are saying.
Its hardly surprising that the great British public are looking elsewhere for their entertainment. Even to Coldplay.
Yet the truth is if you ask "the great British public" what "the answer is" all you get is incoherent gibberish which usually starts with tax rises for everyone except me and swingeing cuts for everyone else who uses the services I don't use.
That's the problem with trying to be honest - the electorate don't want politicians to be dishonest but they don't want them to be honest either.
Top politics is about shaping the future anew. No-one has seriously tried a reasonable degree of honesty for quite a long time. Political distortion and lying has dominated the culture for many years. Peter Oborne's book The Rise of Political Lying was published 20 years ago. And he wrote it at a point many years into the new manipulative culture being in place. It's a long time since truth was tried. When you are 17% in the polls and used to dominate the political scene could be a good moment for the Tories to give it a try.
I do agree it's about "the vision thing" and if I were a Conservative. Lib Dem or Green, I'd be thinking hard about how I envisage governing Britain in the 2030s and beyond.
What does that Britain look like? How does it work? How does it operate in the best interests of all its citizens? The first thing is probably to tear up past policies and even ideologies and look at practical solutions to problems.
We've seen many times conservatism and liberalism re-invent themselves to take account of societal and technological changes. That doesn't mean abandoning core principles but recognising adaptation and evolution.
To be honest, the first thing the Conservatives need to do is be more willing to undertake a profound mea culpa - Sunak started that on the day after the election but it was never going to be enough to turn the page in and of itself.
I think one interesting area will be debate around what "a Christian Society" will mean in 25 years. And that, of course, may be of zero interest to some.
So, what will a "Humanist" or a "Secularist" society look like? I'm not sure if either of those can do a broad analysis, since both are quite heavily defined in their current incarnations by being anti-religion.
In the WW2 era, there was a lot of thinking going on around people like Archbishop William Temple, who in his 1942 book "Christianity and Social Order (1942)" outlined the Welfare State in reaction to social conditions in the previous years. In WW2 "what comes after we are through this" was a theme - also with the Atlantic Charter between Churchill and Roosevelt in 1941 setting groundwork for the UN.
It's almost "necessity is the mother of invention".
There are a lot of other places it will need to come from too in a pluralistic society.
For the British Evangelical tradition, in the later 20C thinking about society was moved forward by John Stott, as a central figure. Now Sir Paul Marshall is in that arena. Personally I'm not sure his tradition has what it takes - personal view, being too close to USA thinking.
I think we may expect some interesting publications from women Bishops and other female figures, who are much more prominent compared to say 1965. But I'm not sure where else reflection and ideas will emerge from.
A fascinating set of questions. A couple of points in response.
Evangelical thinking includes people who would like to break out of the cage but not all that many. To take an example, many of the loudest voices in the evangelical movement not only oppose acknowledging gay relationships in an ecclesiastical setting, but are clear that all of them are forbidden and sinful in all circumstances. This is strong enough to split the CoE, and lots of people intend to go to the stake over it. Evangelicalism has not really recovered from the 60s sexual revolution and has not found a place to rest, though I think it has much to offer (I am not one.)
Secondly, thinking about religion and society used to take for granted the Jewish community as a respected subset of the majority religion of Christianity. Now, the only possible way of looking at religion in societal terms is to include Islam along with the other two as an Abrahamic ethical monotheistic set. (What could possibly go wrong?)
Interesting books and ideas from women bishops? Don't hold your breath. When it comes to ideas Elizabeth Anscombe, Iris Murdoch and Philippa Foot are secure in their position with no threat from the current female bench, I am sorry to say. And the men are no better.
Absolutely it will be one contribution amongst a number. Even conversionist Christians who look for a wave of conversions amongst the Muslim community recognise that "we live together in society", and will look for the good of everyone. There are biblical injunctions to do so. I think a Sikh and Ahmadi Muslim contribution could be particularly valuable.
But also it's good fun to see where people end up. You can never tell. And the real insights are what we call "in the nooks and on the edges". Many of our finest Bishops have learn much on the mission field - by interacting with "the other".
One of my older friends now in Guildford is a lady in her 80s who came into the village church in Derbyshire where I lived.
It started when her violent, alcoholic husband went to a dinner meeting of the Full Gospel Businessmens Fellowship International (ie Pentcostalists), which is like a City dinner but they sing choruses and hear sermons and do "ministry". He had a conversion experience, gave up drink and stopped being violent; it was quick but not instant - a real metanoia.
They stayed together, and joined the (traditional middle-of-the-road) church, and he became so enthusiastic in the church that it was quite wearing. They had very tough times as a family, and used to take their holidays at Spring Harvest for years and years.
She ended up doing a part-time course that educated her to theology degree level and was an assistant Church of England Minister for 25 years, including in one of the CofE churches near where I now live, which had a wonderful Welsh vicar and grew enough in the 1990s that they had to install an immersion baptistry.
We had another one in the same village church who was a firm atheist, and came to church one day with his wife, and had a spontaneous conversion experience whilst kneeling down out of politeness. Then he started and lead a church Bible Study group for the next 10-12 years. He became a very Church of England sort of polite conservative evangelical who wanted a greater emphasis on the plain text of the Bible, so did it DIY because the vicar did not.
That sort of stuff (but more often less colourful than the first one) is everywhere if you talk to people, but it never makes the papers.
Queue of people waiting to pay for their goods at Greggs in Becontree.
Meanwhile two roadmen load up a carrier bag and leave.
As I said before, why pay and follow the rules when others don’t with no comeback.
I remember being told by a Lib Dem (obvs) here that I was the problem for merely posing the moral dilemma. Not the tea leaves for the theft 😂😂😂😂
If you forget to insure your car or tax it by a day, or forget to renew your license you get hauled into court and fined, usually via SJP where the magistrate will ignore any mitigation. Yet this carries on, effectively decriminalised.
The uncomfortable truth is shoplifting didn't begin in July 2024 - filming people shoplifting is a thing given most people have a mobile phone.
Let's turn the question round - what would you do if you saw shoplifting taking place? Lidl have for example put in different automated tills with receipts needing to be scanned but that's far from foolproof and if a couple of blokes want to come in and steal, the security guard and staff can only do so much. Should we give them tasers or guns and tell them they can shoot shoplifters in cold blood?
A shade draconian methinks and likely counter-productive. I suppose if we doubled the number of Police (who? how? from where (immigration perhaps?)), that would increase street presence and the number of detectives able to pursue such criminal activity.
Ultimately, it comes down to convincing people acts like shoplifting and fare evasion aren't risk free and the consequences of being caught (naming and shaming, custodial sentences?) far outweigh the dubious advantage of getting free food and free travel.
Jenrick can huff and puff to his heart's content - the Conservatives had no answers during their time in Government and they've no answers now.
Once again I say this is easily remedied. New forms of corporal punishment. Taser them daily for a week, and they won't shoplift again
The state has demonstrated its willingness to hand out harsh and disproportionate sentences when it is threatened - see the people jailed for years for tweets last year.
Do the same for people caught and convicted of shoplifting. Allow shopkeepers to tag offenders with anti theft paint and have the police round them up later.
Or we risk devolving into a country where the state is more worried about punishing mean tweets then repeated, habitual theft that makes those of us who actually pay for food/the tube/etc look like mugs.
Yes. Shoplifting may seem like a trivial offence, but like all these offences, if it goes entirely unpunished then the social contract shatters. Why should anyone obey the law, pay for a ticket, buy their food, cough up their taxes, when the state turns a blind eye to those that don't do this, and indeed seems to treat the generally law-abiding more harshly
This is how an Establishment loses all legitimacy. That is now happening in the UK, and it is happening fast. The government no longer rules by consent so it must do so by force. As Prof David Betz has said, we are on the road to something very dark
And on top of that, we have the Afghan scandal. We now know the government will eagerly lie to us, for years, on the most profound and controversial subjects, and could be lying right now, indeed it probably is, and we are forbidden from even discussing the lies?
It ain't good. It really really isn't good
We’ve reached a point where the governing class and the public are just talking past each other.
Queue of people waiting to pay for their goods at Greggs in Becontree.
Meanwhile two roadmen load up a carrier bag and leave.
As I said before, why pay and follow the rules when others don’t with no comeback.
I remember being told by a Lib Dem (obvs) here that I was the problem for merely posing the moral dilemma. Not the tea leaves for the theft 😂😂😂😂
If you forget to insure your car or tax it by a day, or forget to renew your license you get hauled into court and fined, usually via SJP where the magistrate will ignore any mitigation. Yet this carries on, effectively decriminalised.
The uncomfortable truth is shoplifting didn't begin in July 2024 - filming people shoplifting is a thing given most people have a mobile phone.
Let's turn the question round - what would you do if you saw shoplifting taking place? Lidl have for example put in different automated tills with receipts needing to be scanned but that's far from foolproof and if a couple of blokes want to come in and steal, the security guard and staff can only do so much. Should we give them tasers or guns and tell them they can shoot shoplifters in cold blood?
A shade draconian methinks and likely counter-productive. I suppose if we doubled the number of Police (who? how? from where (immigration perhaps?)), that would increase street presence and the number of detectives able to pursue such criminal activity.
Ultimately, it comes down to convincing people acts like shoplifting and fare evasion aren't risk free and the consequences of being caught (naming and shaming, custodial sentences?) far outweigh the dubious advantage of getting free food and free travel.
Jenrick can huff and puff to his heart's content - the Conservatives had no answers during their time in Government and they've no answers now.
If I saw it I wouldn’t do a thing. Why risk getting stabbed ?
I wouldn’t blame any min wage security guard for not getting involved either.
On our local groups we have been complaining about the rise of it in Durham and Chester for several years. I’m not making a party political point here and hold no torch for JENRICK.
It’s notable locally since Police increased their presence in town incidents of not just shoplifting but other anti social behaviour has declined.
That’s good.
I’d rather raise the issue and try to get some police presence to do something about it than just say ‘oh it’s very bad we can’t really do much but roll our eyes’. If people fear consequences they are less likely to do something.
In Durham a fair bit of the theft was from the local groggers to sell in the local pubs to get some cash to get some grog.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
Rule number one: don’t be a dumb racist trolling twat Rule number two: see rule number one
Wait, you called someone a twat. I thought this was bannable? Am I now allowed to call you a twat?
“Don’t be a twat” is not calling anyone a twat. Are you really that dumb?
You called @williamglenn a "dumb racist trolling twat"
Queue of people waiting to pay for their goods at Greggs in Becontree.
Meanwhile two roadmen load up a carrier bag and leave.
As I said before, why pay and follow the rules when others don’t with no comeback.
I remember being told by a Lib Dem (obvs) here that I was the problem for merely posing the moral dilemma. Not the tea leaves for the theft 😂😂😂😂
If you forget to insure your car or tax it by a day, or forget to renew your license you get hauled into court and fined, usually via SJP where the magistrate will ignore any mitigation. Yet this carries on, effectively decriminalised.
The uncomfortable truth is shoplifting didn't begin in July 2024 - filming people shoplifting is a thing given most people have a mobile phone.
Let's turn the question round - what would you do if you saw shoplifting taking place? Lidl have for example put in different automated tills with receipts needing to be scanned but that's far from foolproof and if a couple of blokes want to come in and steal, the security guard and staff can only do so much. Should we give them tasers or guns and tell them they can shoot shoplifters in cold blood?
A shade draconian methinks and likely counter-productive. I suppose if we doubled the number of Police (who? how? from where (immigration perhaps?)), that would increase street presence and the number of detectives able to pursue such criminal activity.
Ultimately, it comes down to convincing people acts like shoplifting and fare evasion aren't risk free and the consequences of being caught (naming and shaming, custodial sentences?) far outweigh the dubious advantage of getting free food and free travel.
Jenrick can huff and puff to his heart's content - the Conservatives had no answers during their time in Government and they've no answers now.
Once again I say this is easily remedied. New forms of corporal punishment. Taser them daily for a week, and they won't shoplift again
Women claim the worst pain is childbirth but they go back and have another baby. Nor were men deterred by the near certainty of madness, disability and death from syphilis or AIDS.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
Rule number one: don’t be a dumb racist trolling twat Rule number two: see rule number one
Wait, you called someone a twat. I thought this was bannable? Am I now allowed to call you a twat?
“Don’t be a twat” is not calling anyone a twat. Are you really that dumb?
You called @williamglenn a "dumb racist trolling twat"
Or were you referring to someone else?
Is it reading or comprehension you are struggling with?
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
Queue of people waiting to pay for their goods at Greggs in Becontree.
Meanwhile two roadmen load up a carrier bag and leave.
As I said before, why pay and follow the rules when others don’t with no comeback.
I remember being told by a Lib Dem (obvs) here that I was the problem for merely posing the moral dilemma. Not the tea leaves for the theft 😂😂😂😂
If you forget to insure your car or tax it by a day, or forget to renew your license you get hauled into court and fined, usually via SJP where the magistrate will ignore any mitigation. Yet this carries on, effectively decriminalised.
The uncomfortable truth is shoplifting didn't begin in July 2024 - filming people shoplifting is a thing given most people have a mobile phone.
Let's turn the question round - what would you do if you saw shoplifting taking place? Lidl have for example put in different automated tills with receipts needing to be scanned but that's far from foolproof and if a couple of blokes want to come in and steal, the security guard and staff can only do so much. Should we give them tasers or guns and tell them they can shoot shoplifters in cold blood?
A shade draconian methinks and likely counter-productive. I suppose if we doubled the number of Police (who? how? from where (immigration perhaps?)), that would increase street presence and the number of detectives able to pursue such criminal activity.
Ultimately, it comes down to convincing people acts like shoplifting and fare evasion aren't risk free and the consequences of being caught (naming and shaming, custodial sentences?) far outweigh the dubious advantage of getting free food and free travel.
Jenrick can huff and puff to his heart's content - the Conservatives had no answers during their time in Government and they've no answers now.
Once again I say this is easily remedied. New forms of corporal punishment. Taser them daily for a week, and they won't shoplift again
Women claim the worst pain is childbirth but they go back and have another baby. Nor were men deterred by the near certainty of madness, disability and death from syphilis or AIDS.
Having more children or experiencing sexual intercourse are, it must be said, much more desirable as human goals than "stealing another 9 sausage rolls from Greggs"
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
Rule number one: don’t be a dumb racist trolling twat Rule number two: see rule number one
Wait, you called someone a twat. I thought this was bannable? Am I now allowed to call you a twat?
“Don’t be a twat” is not calling anyone a twat. Are you really that dumb?
You called @williamglenn a "dumb racist trolling twat"
Or were you referring to someone else?
Is it reading or comprehension you are struggling with?
Did you, or did you not, call @williamglenn a "dumb racist trolling twat"? These were your words, not mine. YOU coarsened the debate. If you were not referring to him, to whom were you referring?
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
Rule number one: don’t be a dumb racist trolling twat Rule number two: see rule number one
Wait, you called someone a twat. I thought this was bannable? Am I now allowed to call you a twat?
“Don’t be a twat” is not calling anyone a twat. Are you really that dumb?
You called @williamglenn a "dumb racist trolling twat"
Or were you referring to someone else?
Is it reading or comprehension you are struggling with?
Did you, or did you not, call @williamglenn a "dumb racist trolling twat"? These were your words, not mine. YOU coarsened the debate. If you were not referring to him, to whom were you referring?
Queue of people waiting to pay for their goods at Greggs in Becontree.
Meanwhile two roadmen load up a carrier bag and leave.
As I said before, why pay and follow the rules when others don’t with no comeback.
I remember being told by a Lib Dem (obvs) here that I was the problem for merely posing the moral dilemma. Not the tea leaves for the theft 😂😂😂😂
If you forget to insure your car or tax it by a day, or forget to renew your license you get hauled into court and fined, usually via SJP where the magistrate will ignore any mitigation. Yet this carries on, effectively decriminalised.
The uncomfortable truth is shoplifting didn't begin in July 2024 - filming people shoplifting is a thing given most people have a mobile phone.
Let's turn the question round - what would you do if you saw shoplifting taking place? Lidl have for example put in different automated tills with receipts needing to be scanned but that's far from foolproof and if a couple of blokes want to come in and steal, the security guard and staff can only do so much. Should we give them tasers or guns and tell them they can shoot shoplifters in cold blood?
A shade draconian methinks and likely counter-productive. I suppose if we doubled the number of Police (who? how? from where (immigration perhaps?)), that would increase street presence and the number of detectives able to pursue such criminal activity.
Ultimately, it comes down to convincing people acts like shoplifting and fare evasion aren't risk free and the consequences of being caught (naming and shaming, custodial sentences?) far outweigh the dubious advantage of getting free food and free travel.
Jenrick can huff and puff to his heart's content - the Conservatives had no answers during their time in Government and they've no answers now.
Once again I say this is easily remedied. New forms of corporal punishment. Taser them daily for a week, and they won't shoplift again
I suspect that would be very popular. After all, throwing rotten fruit and veg at people in the stocks was a huge public thing not so long ago - perhaps your problem is you're thinking too modern which is easily done. Sometimes the old remedies are the best..
Build some stocks - there's plenty of rotten fruit and veg which the supermarkets could provide and every shop lifter or fare evader gets a 15 minute pelting every day for a week along with the ritual humiliation.
In olden times, they used to walk children round the edges of villages and beat them regularly to ensure they knew the boundaries of their particular village - hence the term "beating the bounds". We should bring classes of children to the daily peltings and show them what the consequences of criminal activity will be.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
Rule number one: don’t be a dumb racist trolling twat Rule number two: see rule number one
Wait, you called someone a twat. I thought this was bannable? Am I now allowed to call you a twat?
“Don’t be a twat” is not calling anyone a twat. Are you really that dumb?
You called @williamglenn a "dumb racist trolling twat"
Or were you referring to someone else?
Is it reading or comprehension you are struggling with?
Did you, or did you not, call @williamglenn a "dumb racist trolling twat"? These were your words, not mine. YOU coarsened the debate. If you were not referring to him, to whom were you referring?
Honestly, you’re just showing yourself up now.
Did you, or did you not, call @williamglenn a "dumb racist trolling twat"? These were your words, not mine. YOU coarsened the debate. If you were not referring to him, to whom were you referring?
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
So, I don't know why @williamglenn is no longer able to post, but it is worth remembering that 90% of bans are no such thing: most are 24 or 48 hour time outs after someone has overstepped a line.
He started channelling the language of the far right with calls for self deportations of British citizens born outside the UK, something a few PBers called him out on.
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The mod policy here is interesting, considering Cyclefree made a libellous claim about Beth Upton in the previous thread and got a free pass.
Is there a PB superinjunction about merely discussing the fact a ban exists? Or why?
Quite bizarre
I think it would be useful if a post were stickied in PB on mod policy and what is and isn't allowed to be said.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
It's a very good idea, as the number of Banning Offences is growing. the other day @TSE made - I think - a joking remark that linking to the Spectator is a bannable offence. I presume it was a gag, but it might not be
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
Rule number one: don’t be a dumb racist trolling twat Rule number two: see rule number one
Wait, you called someone a twat. I thought this was bannable? Am I now allowed to call you a twat?
“Don’t be a twat” is not calling anyone a twat. Are you really that dumb?
You called @williamglenn a "dumb racist trolling twat"
Or were you referring to someone else?
Is it reading or comprehension you are struggling with?
Did you, or did you not, call @williamglenn a "dumb racist trolling twat"? These were your words, not mine. YOU coarsened the debate. If you were not referring to him, to whom were you referring?
Honestly, you’re just showing yourself up now.
Did you, or did you not, call @williamglenn a "dumb racist trolling twat"? These were your words, not mine. YOU coarsened the debate. If you were not referring to him, to whom were you referring?
Go back and read the thread; follow the words along slowly with your finger, if it helps you.
You will observe the plea you made for site rules, and for wanting to know what they are. So by way of direct response I suggested some. They would be very sensible rules, which you would do well to consider (perhaps later, when you have sobered up) - but both you and I know that the site rules aren’t set by me.
And none of it is necessary. Eg I manage to post a great deal of 'out there' thought-provoking material without getting banned. Eight years on here and not even a yellow let alone a red.
Comments
No doubt Lord Hermer and Phillipe Sands are already persuading Mauritius to demand £300 billion and the Falkland Islands from us.
That's a new attack line.
They are not a neutral objective body.
Q: Ghislaine Maxwell has been arrested on allegations of child sex trafficking. Why would you wish such a person well?
Trump: “I don't know that…She’s now in jail. I wish her well. I'd wish you well. I'd wish a lot of people well. Good luck. Let them prove somebody was guilty”
(2020)
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1947780566453199349
Looks like you were in good company last night
https://x.com/chris_kammy/status/1947804767461286068?s=61
So, what will a "Humanist" or a "Secularist" society look like? I'm not sure if either of those can do a broad analysis, since both are quite heavily defined in their current incarnations by being anti-religion.
In the WW2 era, there was a lot of thinking going on around people like Archbishop William Temple, who in his 1942 book "Christianity and Social Order (1942)" outlined the Welfare State in reaction to social conditions in the previous years. In WW2 "what comes after we are through this" was a theme - also with the Atlantic Charter between Churchill and Roosevelt in 1941 setting groundwork for the UN.
It's almost "necessity is the mother of invention".
There are a lot of other places it will need to come from too in a pluralistic society.
For the British Evangelical tradition, in the later 20C thinking about society was moved forward by John Stott, as a central figure. Now Sir Paul Marshall is in that arena. Personally I'm not sure his tradition has what it takes - personal view, being too close to USA thinking.
I think we may expect some interesting publications from women Bishops and other female figures, who are much more prominent compared to say 1965. But I'm not sure where else reflection and ideas will emerge from.
So, what would Conservatism be which is radically different?
Or would we need to do it twice ?
Bitter and twisted? Moi???
But it is the UN
Trump may not be right about much but he’s right about ignoring them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crengx473y2o
Cash is so 20th Century.
"Lord Chris Smith (Pembroke 1969) has been elected as the new Chancellor of the University of Cambridge."
Did they come for him at 3AM, like the NKVD from the Lubyanka?
The response from the Essex police chief constable, Ben-Julian Harrington, came as his force said 10 people had now been arrested in connection with violence that erupted after protests outside the hotel in Epping."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jul/23/essex-police-dismiss-claims-bussed-in-anti-racists-epping-asylum-hotel-protest
"Essex Police admitted overnight that it had escorted pro-migrant protesters to the Bell Hotel in Epping.
It had initially denied that it had brought activists from the group Stand Up to Racism to the site amid claims by anti-migrant protesters that the arrival of counter-demonstrators sparked violence on July 17.
It backtracked after being shown footage of the protesters being escorted by officers from a nearby station to the hotel."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/23/asylum-hotels-protests-essex-police-epping/
Evangelical thinking includes people who would like to break out of the cage but not all that many. To take an example, many of the loudest voices in the evangelical movement not only oppose acknowledging gay relationships in an ecclesiastical setting, but are clear that all of them are forbidden and sinful in all circumstances. This is strong enough to split the CoE, and lots of people intend to go to the stake over it. Evangelicalism has not really recovered from the 60s sexual revolution and has not found a place to rest, though I think it has much to offer (I am not one.)
Secondly, thinking about religion and society used to take for granted the Jewish community as a respected subset of the majority religion of Christianity. Now, the only possible way of looking at religion in societal terms is to include Islam along with the other two as an Abrahamic ethical monotheistic set. (What could possibly go wrong?)
Interesting books and ideas from women bishops? Don't hold your breath. When it comes to ideas Elizabeth Anscombe, Iris Murdoch and Philippa Foot are secure in their position with no threat from the current female bench, I am sorry to say. And the men are no better.
Quite bizarre
What we came to call Thatcherism was the radical solution to the cul-de-sac of Butskellism and it may be we need to think in similarly radical terms if we believe the social democratic State has come to a dead end.
We are an ageing population and a "large managed state" works well for many. Improvements in medical technology have prolonged life (though not always its quality) yet we still apply 20th century mindsets to the 21st century world. The world of factories, shifts, class and conformity casts a long shadow but that world is disappearing or fragmenting.
Our interactions with and dependency on elements of "the State" to deliver basic services are a cornerstone of our life and society and I'd like to see an honest debate about what kind of State we want and how much we are willing to pay for it.
The police didn’t “bus” the counter-protestors, they merely escorted to them to the site in other vehicles, no busses involved.
Yet we wonder why trust in media and authority is at an all-time low.
The reason for paying is because it is the right thing to do. Just because some toerag doesn't, does not mean it is ok for you not to. Of course it helps as a deterrent if they don't get away with it and that the police and courts enforced the law as a deterrent, which clearly isn't happening as this is so blatant. Don't think you can blame the LDs for that failure.
You do seem to have an irrational hatred of the LDs, blaming them for anything and everything.
I'm asking a simple question. A regular and much beloved commenter, albeit controversial, is banned
If he did something obviously wrong, fair enough, but quite a few of us would like to know what it is, if only so we don't fall foul of the same rule
...
From a total of 14,923,840 active customer accounts, operators reported 643,779 accounts restricted in some form – a rate of 4.31 per cent.
...
25.42 per cent of active customers are in profit vs. 46.78 per cent of restricted customers
72.54 per cent of active customers are in loss vs. 51.29 per cent of restricted customers.
https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/blog/post/commercial-restrictions-by-betting-operators
The anti-Gambling Commission has uncovered some interesting findings although I'm not holding my breath waiting for action.
China, USA, India, Russia, Japan, Iran, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Canada.
I'm hugely in favour of free speech which is why I have no issue with most of the comments posted here even when I disagree with them, though if I were Dr Upton I would probs consider legal action on the allegations made in the previous thread.
Williamglenn is at best a provocateur and at worst an asshole and russian troll, but we probably deserve to know what he said and why he was banned for saying it.
We know that rooming bangs aren't something we're allowed to discuss here, but what else gets the ban hammer (when libel doesn't?). A clear list of rules and 'do not cross' lines would be useful (especially for new commentators, who may not be familiar with edicts issued in threads months ago).
Ditto the new rules on swearing at others, the unmentionable subjects, and so forth...
The site can only function with rules, and the mods are entitled to impose rules as they see fit. We all accept that. But commenters can only function if they KNOW the rules
He was a few posts away talking about remigration.
Last time I spoke to your Dad he didn’t want that kind of post to go unpunished.
Badenoch
- https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/07/kemi-badenoch-isnt-working
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh6GwGHIFiE
Starmer- https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2025/06/what-keir-starmer-cant-say
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCHuhUeGrLU
I wonder if they'll do any of the other leaders, Farage being the obvious. Have they done so?The uncomfortable truth is shoplifting didn't begin in July 2024 - filming people shoplifting is a thing given most people have a mobile phone.
Let's turn the question round - what would you do if you saw shoplifting taking place? Lidl have for example put in different automated tills with receipts needing to be scanned but that's far from foolproof and if a couple of blokes want to come in and steal, the security guard and staff can only do so much. Should we give them tasers or guns and tell them they can shoot shoplifters in cold blood?
A shade draconian methinks and likely counter-productive. I suppose if we doubled the number of Police (who? how? from where (immigration perhaps?)), that would increase street presence and the number of detectives able to pursue such criminal activity.
Ultimately, it comes down to convincing people acts like shoplifting and fare evasion aren't risk free and the consequences of being caught (naming and shaming, custodial sentences?) far outweigh the dubious advantage of getting free food and free travel.
Jenrick can huff and puff to his heart's content - the Conservatives had no answers during their time in Government and they've no answers now.
I think the developers have got Miliband where they want him, he is nailed to the offshore wind mast and needs to put an attractive offer out for tender
"Essex Police admitted overnight that it had escorted pro-migrant protesters to the Bell Hotel in Epping.
It had initially denied that it had brought activists from the group Stand Up to Racism to the site amid claims by anti-migrant protesters that the arrival of counter-demonstrators sparked violence on July 17.
It backtracked after being shown footage of the protesters being escorted by officers from a nearby station to the hotel."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/23/asylum-hotels-protests-essex-police-epping/
Yougov seems to be doing a lot of what could be viewed as Government damage limitation at present. That cringe-making leading question on Afghanistan being the most recent example. They were telling us that most people had nothing but sympathy for the rehomed, now they're telling us that nobody cares. Not sure I set an awful lot of store by either verdict.
Sit down. Get ready. Brace. Put a mouth guard in. This may hurt.
Some ideas are unacceptable to decent people. Even when they are just ideas.
Theo Bertram
@theobertram
·
5h
Farage gets what most politicians don't: video is how you reach people. (Mobile/portrait format, with classic TikTok-style stitching).
46 per cent of Brits say they actively avoid news; among those that do consume news, 65 per cent do so by watching videos on a smartphone.
https://x.com/theobertram/status/1947985492424929304
It is lucky there is a ban against foul language because I would now submit you to a finely crafted fusillade of the same. As it is I shall restrict myself to noting that you are morally repulsive
Much the same with theology. Accept that lots of people find a huge amount in the life and teachings of Christ, but many many more don't, and you probably have to end up with the pragmatic, well-meaning mush of the established religions. Spicier forms can exist and grow exponentially, but only up to a point. The nearest to a new idea in Christianity in my lifetime has been the HTB/Paul Marshall project, and that increasingly looks like reheated public school purity and a lot of glossy advertising. Bless those who find it a blessing, but it isn't transforming the nation.
(And whilst +Guli of Chelmsford is definitely good news, and the only reason I don't want her going to Canterbury is that that job devours all who take it, her Big Idea is not to have Big Ideas. Frankly admirable.)
Do the same for people caught and convicted of shoplifting. Allow shopkeepers to tag offenders with anti theft paint and have the police round them up later.
Or we risk devolving into a country where the state is more worried about punishing mean tweets then repeated, habitual theft that makes those of us who actually pay for food/the tube/etc look like mugs.
Also, outraging DECENT PEOPLE
Rule number two: see rule number one
I also didn’t blame them for this.
My disdain for the Lib Dem’s, and I am not alone here, is no different to others disdain for other parties. Especially Reform.
Locally I quite like some of the Durham Lib Dem’s. Craig Martin is very well regarded locally. Amanda Hopgood was okay as leader of the council.
But nationally I have no time for them, they are political whores who promise anything And everything in a desperate antrempt to get votes, a couple of the new intake are impressive but the rest are just bland dullards repeating meaningless platitudes and they have a leader who acts like a poor Norman Wisdom tribute act. Indeed pratfalls are his speciality.
This is how an Establishment loses all legitimacy. That is now happening in the UK, and it is happening fast. The government no longer rules by consent so it must do so by force. As Prof David Betz has said, we are on the road to something very dark
And on top of that, we have the Afghan scandal. We now know the government will eagerly lie to us, for years, on the most profound and controversial subjects, and could be lying right now, indeed it probably is, and we are forbidden from even discussing the lies?
It ain't good. It really really isn't good
https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/blog/post/commercial-restrictions-by-betting-operators
One reason for not closing accounts is that the bookie can report to shareholders that they have more active accounts, even if some are restricted to buttons.
But also it's good fun to see where people end up. You can never tell. And the real insights are what we call "in the nooks and on the edges". Many of our finest Bishops have learn much on the mission field - by interacting with "the other".
One of my older friends now in Guildford is a lady in her 80s who came into the village church in Derbyshire where I lived.
It started when her violent, alcoholic husband went to a dinner meeting of the Full Gospel Businessmens Fellowship International (ie Pentcostalists), which is like a City dinner but they sing choruses and hear sermons and do "ministry". He had a conversion experience, gave up drink and stopped being violent; it was quick but not instant - a real metanoia.
They stayed together, and joined the (traditional middle-of-the-road) church, and he became so enthusiastic in the church that it was quite wearing. They had very tough times as a family, and used to take their holidays at Spring Harvest for years and years.
She ended up doing a part-time course that educated her to theology degree level and was an assistant Church of England Minister for 25 years, including in one of the CofE churches near where I now live, which had a wonderful Welsh vicar and grew enough in the 1990s that they had to install an immersion baptistry.
We had another one in the same village church who was a firm atheist, and came to church one day with his wife, and had a spontaneous conversion experience whilst kneeling down out of politeness. Then he started and lead a church Bible Study group for the next 10-12 years. He became a very Church of England sort of polite conservative evangelical who wanted a greater emphasis on the plain text of the Bible, so did it DIY because the vicar did not.
That sort of stuff (but more often less colourful than the first one) is everywhere if you talk to people, but it never makes the papers.
I wouldn’t blame any min wage security guard for not getting involved either.
On our local groups we have been complaining about the rise of it in Durham and Chester for several years. I’m not making a party political point here and hold no torch for JENRICK.
It’s notable locally since Police increased their presence in town incidents of not just shoplifting but other anti social behaviour has declined.
That’s good.
I’d rather raise the issue and try to get some police presence to do something about it than just say ‘oh it’s very bad we can’t really do much but roll our eyes’. If people fear consequences they are less likely to do something.
In Durham a fair bit of the theft was from the local groggers to sell in the local pubs to get some cash to get some grog.
Or were you referring to someone else?
Perhaps you missed that nuance
Build some stocks - there's plenty of rotten fruit and veg which the supermarkets could provide and every shop lifter or fare evader gets a 15 minute pelting every day for a week along with the ritual humiliation.
In olden times, they used to walk children round the edges of villages and beat them regularly to ensure they knew the boundaries of their particular village - hence the term "beating the bounds". We should bring classes of children to the daily peltings and show them what the consequences of criminal activity will be.
You will observe the plea you made for site rules, and for wanting to know what they are. So by way of direct response I suggested some. They would be very sensible rules, which you would do well to consider (perhaps later, when you have sobered up) - but both you and I know that the site rules aren’t set by me.