Oklahoma Senator Mullins is an interesting character:
Mullin and his wife, Christie Renee Rowan, live in Westville, a few miles from the Arkansas border, and have six children,[3] including twin girls adopted in August 2013.[4]
Between November 2006 and April 2007, Mullin fought in three mixed martial arts fights, winning all three.[97][98]
Mullin is an enrolled citizen of the Cherokee Nation.[99] He is one of four Native Americans serving in the 119th Congress.[a]
Remarkable indeed. Going by your commentary, I'd have expected those numbers to be much higher.
It would be interesting to know if a PB commenter is allowed to say “I agree with more than half the British people, and Islam is not compatible with British values”
Or would that get the commenter banned like @williamglenn on the grounds that the PB centrist dads find this opinion “unacceptable”
Centrist dad? I'm a socialist grandad, if you don't mind.
I was the Telegraph with afaics no link to the survey n the article.
And I do now know what perception of Islam was in their heads, or what they had been placed in front of them to gain their reaction.
Actually pretty devastating findings. Worse as you drill down
Just checking, are YouGov acceptable to you now, because you were a bit angry at them before over the Afghan leak stuff as the findings didn’t correspond with your views?
There are a small handful of posters on here who whenever the opportunity arises pick up some obtuse Islam- hostile ball and run with it.
It may be central to the work of Farage and Anderson to whip up all kinds of nonsense. But is it necessary on here?
OGH has made it clear it isn’t necessary on here.
This poll is headline news on the Telegraph, Guardian and the BBC. And we're not allowed to mention it. Are you serious?!
It's not the poll you moron, it is how you extrapolate the data for your own agenda.
Show me where I extrapolated the data
The interesting bit of the “compatibility” poll is the ratio of 2:1 - no to yes. In democracies, if those sorts of opinion ratios are ignored by policy makers indefinitely, the lid blows off and you then end up with exaggerated policy responses. Widespread fatigue with key features of EU policy creep leading to full Brexit was a classic example.
What such an exaggerated policy response looks like in this case, I will leave you all to ponder. But anyone on the “yes” side of that polling question would do well to carefully consider how best to close the opinion gap before there is such an exaggerated policy reaction. Suppressing comment and debate doesn’t feel like the optimal way of going about it but what do I know.
Are we looking for an "exaggerated policy response" and if so what would that be? It wasn't so long ago Catholicism was outlawed and the number of manor houses with priest holes shows you how effective it was.
Catholicism was seen as being antithetical to English values at the time.
If we see Islam in a similar light now, do we adopt a similar response - ban the outward trappings - the hijab, the burqa etc, close down the madrassas? I've seen people on other forums call for the mass deportation of all British Muslims for example.
I presume no one is thinking along those lines so it's back presumably to education on both sides.
Clarkson was right. Unless it's for work or a spectacular pay rise, emigration just turns you into somebody who constantly moans.
"The primary purpose of the British constabulary is to suppress the unruly passions of a native population it holds in contempt."
Does Clarkson ever get tired of talking bollocks?
Our police (and I am closely related to, and acquainted with, a few) are actually remarkably respectful of, and friendly to, the population in general as long as you're not a criminal. There are plenty of countries in the world where the police are contemptuous of, or actively hostile to, the masses, but this isn't one of them.
The issue isn't the attitude of the police, it's that they have to follow the rulings of an arrogant, cynical and incompetent political class, of which our Prime Minister and his cronies are the stereotypical example, who really do want to suppress a population, or parts of it anyway, they hold in contempt.
What a load of impartial forelock tugging bullshit.
But I guess your perspective of plod depends on where you are in society and where you are geographically
The police sorry to say often derive their attitudes from their perception of you. You might find them remarkably respectful and friendly, others of us not so much. For example my record in my mid twenties was being stopped, searched and questioned 23 times in a single year. Frankly I don't find the crime of walking down the road from the shop with a 4 pint bottle of milk in my hand a respectful or friendly attitude. I am guessing my crime was probably having waist length hair and a leather jacket because none of the times I was stopped was I doing anything suspicious.
IMHO, having waist length hair is more than sufficient reason for the police to be taking an interest in you.
Is there some study that have proved a correlation between hair length and criminality that I am unaware of?
The thing is I got to know the police in slough pretty well as they kept pulling me over and most of them would quite happily admit the pubs that there was usually trouble at weren't the ones full of bikers, punks and goths but the ones the trendy folk went too, where there was a dress code etc. They just didn't seem to realise the cognitive dissonance between assuming we were trouble compared to the places they had to monitor waiting for the kick off on a saturday night
Many years ago, a friend was knocked down in a hit and run, on his way home from working a shift in a pub.
A policeman found him lying in the gutter, gave him a shoeing and arrested him. While semi-conscious.
When asked, the policeman replied (I paraphrase, but the sentiment is right) "He was a long haired drunk* bastard and deserved it."
*Smelled of beer, but a blood test at the hospital, on admission showed next to no alcohol.
Best one I had was arrested, thrown ungently into a van and spent 12 hours in a cell....my crime they found a spray can in my pocket. When the duty solicitor finally turned up (never speak to the police as recommended by serving officers such as night jack) got resolved in 10 minutes when the solicitor pointed out the spray can wasn't paint but hairspray
Why does @Malmesbury have so many "friends" who have been arrested?
Was he the copper?
In my long-haired student period I was wandering down the road at 2am when Thames Valley's finest pounced and invited me for a ride in their panda car. Apparently they were looking for someone last seen breaking into a butcher's shop. "Wouldn't have been me," I trilled, "I'm a vegetarian". The copper stared at me as if I was a complete and utter imbecile. "They weren't looking for meat," he said.
During the lockdown I went for a countryside walk because that was what we were being encouraged to do. While I was walking along a road a police car came along and decided to stop and ask me what I was doing in a very unfriendly way. Irritating and unnecessary. They did it just because I was the only person walking in that area.
Same here, but I was within 5km (1km in fact) of home, so politely told him to do one. It wasn't exactly George Floyd mind.
I think Hunt would make a fine Leader of the Opposition in normal times - but these are not normal times. The Tories are on the verge of dropping to fourth.
I really don't like Jenrick, and he should be ruled out due to the stench of corruption emanating from his dealings in government, but it feels like he's the pugilistic political street fighter that the Tories need right now. That's in part what they thought they were getting with Badenoch - someone spiky and energetic who would take the fight to the other parties - but she's been a bit like a rabbit frozen in the headlights.
Once the Tories have survived the challenge from Reform and the Lib Dems, and retained their status as the official opposition, then they can move on to a more broadly reassuring figure like Hunt (supposing an individual with real leadership ability hasn't emerged in the interim).
What is right now depends, quantum like, on the future. As a competitor in Reform's space, Jenrick is qualified to be the leader who loses such centre voters the Tories still have, and succeeds in splitting the Jenrick/Farage vote so that like Aesop's scorpions they kill each other and, at about 23% each, they come joint second well behind Labour, who, with 27/28% of the vote form the next government with LD/SNP support.
But if Jenrick means a Tory Reform electoral pact, then it is formidable, though unwelcome to me. Such a pact will win fairly easily.
In the unlikely event that the Tories wanted to rediscover role, purpose, principle, policy and a bit of hard truth telling, then Hunt looks like the only candidate for now, though not a stellar one.
Given Britain's use of the FPTP system the first task for a Tory leader is to ensure that they remain the leading party to the right of centre. This means that they absolutely must eclipse Reform and Farage. Where they fall relative to Labour is a secondary concern (though, of course, they should not admit this).
This is a historical account. A radical Tory leader might start to accept that outside the extremes the terms 'left' and 'right' have no special use because we are all slightly differing shades of social democrat. This IMO includes Reform, though for proof we shall have to await events.
Finding a place for Conservatism which ignores platitudinous fact free distinctions of left and right, and starts to think what might be a model for society once the 1945 - the present day social democrat consensus has run its course would be useful.
(The only remotely serious non social-democrats in visible politics are Corbyn style genuinely socialist and properly libertarian movements).
Jez takes the hard unionist, flog the bankers and the Jews vote from Labour. Farage takes the shut the door / flog the criminals vote from the Tories.
You’re basically left with three wishy washy status quo parties of around 10-15% each. The Centrist Dad party. Logically they should merge and consolidate their agenda for an ever growing client welfare state, paid for by easy borders and at the cost of managed gradual decline.
Or perhaps Starmer will gamble and kill off FPTP before the next election, with the aim of them all entering a grand coalition to keep out Nasty Nigel.
good point, but I would in fact contest the 'wishy washy' claim about Tory. Lab and LD even though I have no fondness for any of them at the moment.
The Lab/Con and slightly LD performance since WWII has its points, as we can see by the effects of it going awry. The social democrat state of high spend, (therefore high tax), regulated capitalism, welfare safety net, pensions, free education to 18, social services, social housing, NHS, NATO is a very good thing in a multitude of ways. To create and sustain it (and fund it) for 80 years is not a wishy washy achievement but a sustained effort.
At some point people will start to notice the obvious. Farage has not the slightest intention of dismantling any of it. Pay careful attention to what he says, and even more to what he doesn't say.
"The Samaritans are planning to close more than 100 branches across the UK and Ireland, the BBC has learned.
In a presentation to staff, the suicide prevention charity's chief executive said "at least half" of their branches will close.
Dozens of branches have voiced concerns, some fearing the proposals will lead to an exodus of volunteers: "They're dismantling something that has worked for 70 years," said one volunteer.
The Samaritans said having more than 200 branches "is not sustainable and hinders us" from providing the best service."
Clearly Samaritans are a very good thing whose shoestrings seem to be snapping.
Back to the central mystery- why could our grandparents' society afford this and we apparently can't?
The Chief Executive did a similar thing when she ran Childline, she's like a plague of locusts. If the problem is that they need more volunteers, the solution isn't going to be closing half the branches and ask people to take calls from suicidal people (and mischief makers) from home. It's a competency issue.
There seems to be a plague of such people in the Charitable/Third Sector. They are incompetent managers to a staggering degree, moving around, collapsing organisations. A common factor is their belief in "professionalisation" - by which they mean lots of reports to/for/at/or/near/by/with/or/from senior managers, as well as hiring in expensive outside agencies. To generate more reports.
The actual operation of the organisation can go hang, as far as they are concerned.
Such people also have a rabid dislike and fear of volunteerism.
Amen to that.
"Professionalisation" is due to the attachment of Service Level Agreements (SLA) from funding bodies. More often than not, the funding is government derived from various pots channelled though various super organisations. Many quite capable volunteers object to having a Capability Matrix used to question their abilities and sometimes a role comes with the need for CPD too. Continuous Professional Development is costly so organisations may not wish to spend it on those at the end of their careers.
Process State in all its glories.
The sad thing is that all the things you mention are fundamentally sensible - SLAs in return for money. Checking whether your staff are actually trained to do various jobs.
It's the turning them into performative bullshit which is so hateful.
"The Samaritans are planning to close more than 100 branches across the UK and Ireland, the BBC has learned.
In a presentation to staff, the suicide prevention charity's chief executive said "at least half" of their branches will close.
Dozens of branches have voiced concerns, some fearing the proposals will lead to an exodus of volunteers: "They're dismantling something that has worked for 70 years," said one volunteer.
The Samaritans said having more than 200 branches "is not sustainable and hinders us" from providing the best service."
Clearly Samaritans are a very good thing whose shoestrings seem to be snapping.
Back to the central mystery- why could our grandparents' society afford this and we apparently can't?
The Chief Executive did a similar thing when she ran Childline, she's like a plague of locusts. If the problem is that they need more volunteers, the solution isn't going to be closing half the branches and ask people to take calls from suicidal people (and mischief makers) from home. It's a competency issue.
There seems to be a plague of such people in the Charitable/Third Sector. They are incompetent managers to a staggering degree, moving around, collapsing organisations. A common factor is their belief in "professionalisation" - by which they mean lots of reports to/for/at/or/near/by/with/or/from senior managers, as well as hiring in expensive outside agencies. To generate more reports.
The actual operation of the organisation can go hang, as far as they are concerned.
Such people also have a rabid dislike and fear of volunteerism.
Amen to that.
"Professionalisation" is due to the attachment of Service Level Agreements (SLA) from funding bodies. More often than not, the funding is government derived from various pots channelled though various super organisations. Many quite capable volunteers object to having a Capability Matrix used to question their abilities and sometimes a role comes with the need for CPD too. Continuous Professional Development is costly so organisations may not wish to spend it on those at the end of their careers.
Process State in all its glories.
IMHO it won't be long (a decade maybe) before red tape closes down the majority of small local charities. The red tape may have a laudable aim but little charities just can't meet the demands.
Clarkson was right. Unless it's for work or a spectacular pay rise, emigration just turns you into somebody who constantly moans.
"The primary purpose of the British constabulary is to suppress the unruly passions of a native population it holds in contempt."
Does Clarkson ever get tired of talking bollocks?
Our police (and I am closely related to, and acquainted with, a few) are actually remarkably respectful of, and friendly to, the population in general as long as you're not a criminal. There are plenty of countries in the world where the police are contemptuous of, or actively hostile to, the masses, but this isn't one of them.
The issue isn't the attitude of the police, it's that they have to follow the rulings of an arrogant, cynical and incompetent political class, of which our Prime Minister and his cronies are the stereotypical example, who really do want to suppress a population, or parts of it anyway, they hold in contempt.
What a load of impartial forelock tugging bullshit.
But I guess your perspective of plod depends on where you are in society and where you are geographically
The police sorry to say often derive their attitudes from their perception of you. You might find them remarkably respectful and friendly, others of us not so much. For example my record in my mid twenties was being stopped, searched and questioned 23 times in a single year. Frankly I don't find the crime of walking down the road from the shop with a 4 pint bottle of milk in my hand a respectful or friendly attitude. I am guessing my crime was probably having waist length hair and a leather jacket because none of the times I was stopped was I doing anything suspicious.
IMHO, having waist length hair is more than sufficient reason for the police to be taking an interest in you.
Is there some study that have proved a correlation between hair length and criminality that I am unaware of?
The thing is I got to know the police in slough pretty well as they kept pulling me over and most of them would quite happily admit the pubs that there was usually trouble at weren't the ones full of bikers, punks and goths but the ones the trendy folk went too, where there was a dress code etc. They just didn't seem to realise the cognitive dissonance between assuming we were trouble compared to the places they had to monitor waiting for the kick off on a saturday night
Many years ago, a friend was knocked down in a hit and run, on his way home from working a shift in a pub.
A policeman found him lying in the gutter, gave him a shoeing and arrested him. While semi-conscious.
When asked, the policeman replied (I paraphrase, but the sentiment is right) "He was a long haired drunk* bastard and deserved it."
*Smelled of beer, but a blood test at the hospital, on admission showed next to no alcohol.
Best one I had was arrested, thrown ungently into a van and spent 12 hours in a cell....my crime they found a spray can in my pocket. When the duty solicitor finally turned up (never speak to the police as recommended by serving officers such as night jack) got resolved in 10 minutes when the solicitor pointed out the spray can wasn't paint but hairspray
Why does @Malmesbury have so many "friends" who have been arrested?
Was he the copper?
In my long-haired student period I was wandering down the road at 2am when Thames Valley's finest pounced and invited me for a ride in their panda car. Apparently they were looking for someone last seen breaking into a butcher's shop. "Wouldn't have been me," I trilled, "I'm a vegetarian". The copper stared at me as if I was a complete and utter imbecile. "They weren't looking for meat," he said.
During the lockdown I went for a countryside walk because that was what we were being encouraged to do. While I was walking along a road a police car came along and decided to stop and ask me what I was doing in a very unfriendly way. Irritating and unnecessary. They did it just because I was the only person walking in that area.
Same here, but I was within 5km (1km in fact) of home, so politely told him to do one. It wasn't exactly George Floyd mind.
Living in Cumbria, during lockdown when churches had to be 'locked' I visited a few which I knew were always kept open. The reason they were open was that they were always open, any key that ever existed had been mislaid sometime between 1300 and 1900 and they had never changed the locks. Don't tell the police.
"The Samaritans are planning to close more than 100 branches across the UK and Ireland, the BBC has learned.
In a presentation to staff, the suicide prevention charity's chief executive said "at least half" of their branches will close.
Dozens of branches have voiced concerns, some fearing the proposals will lead to an exodus of volunteers: "They're dismantling something that has worked for 70 years," said one volunteer.
The Samaritans said having more than 200 branches "is not sustainable and hinders us" from providing the best service."
Clearly Samaritans are a very good thing whose shoestrings seem to be snapping.
Back to the central mystery- why could our grandparents' society afford this and we apparently can't?
The Chief Executive did a similar thing when she ran Childline, she's like a plague of locusts. If the problem is that they need more volunteers, the solution isn't going to be closing half the branches and ask people to take calls from suicidal people (and mischief makers) from home. It's a competency issue.
There seems to be a plague of such people in the Charitable/Third Sector. They are incompetent managers to a staggering degree, moving around, collapsing organisations. A common factor is their belief in "professionalisation" - by which they mean lots of reports to/for/at/or/near/by/with/or/from senior managers, as well as hiring in expensive outside agencies. To generate more reports.
The actual operation of the organisation can go hang, as far as they are concerned.
Such people also have a rabid dislike and fear of volunteerism.
Amen to that.
"Professionalisation" is due to the attachment of Service Level Agreements (SLA) from funding bodies. More often than not, the funding is government derived from various pots channelled though various super organisations. Many quite capable volunteers object to having a Capability Matrix used to question their abilities and sometimes a role comes with the need for CPD too. Continuous Professional Development is costly so organisations may not wish to spend it on those at the end of their careers.
Process State in all its glories.
There is a bit of a plague. The problem seems to be that the more toxic you are the better a reference you get to make sure you go away.
There is one individual I know who has worked their way up various conservation organisations who manages to de-recruit volunteers at a prodigious rate.
An acquaintance who is one of the last people to ever get worked up about anything and is friends to many volunteer organisations and well known in the field resigned his (paid for) life membership in protest along with several others and yet the juggernaut ploughs on.
"The Samaritans are planning to close more than 100 branches across the UK and Ireland, the BBC has learned.
In a presentation to staff, the suicide prevention charity's chief executive said "at least half" of their branches will close.
Dozens of branches have voiced concerns, some fearing the proposals will lead to an exodus of volunteers: "They're dismantling something that has worked for 70 years," said one volunteer.
The Samaritans said having more than 200 branches "is not sustainable and hinders us" from providing the best service."
Clearly Samaritans are a very good thing whose shoestrings seem to be snapping.
Back to the central mystery- why could our grandparents' society afford this and we apparently can't?
The Chief Executive did a similar thing when she ran Childline, she's like a plague of locusts. If the problem is that they need more volunteers, the solution isn't going to be closing half the branches and ask people to take calls from suicidal people (and mischief makers) from home. It's a competency issue.
There seems to be a plague of such people in the Charitable/Third Sector. They are incompetent managers to a staggering degree, moving around, collapsing organisations. A common factor is their belief in "professionalisation" - by which they mean lots of reports to/for/at/or/near/by/with/or/from senior managers, as well as hiring in expensive outside agencies. To generate more reports.
The actual operation of the organisation can go hang, as far as they are concerned.
Such people also have a rabid dislike and fear of volunteerism.
“Professionalisation” of charities often kills them, as they forget their core mission and come to exist for the benefit of managers.
I was involved with a small housing association, established by clergy in 1967. Congregations were encouraged to donate, so as to buy properties to house people, who could not obtain mortgages. The charity flourished to the point it be became just another housing association, with high-paid management, and almost no voluntary involvement.
I think Hunt would make a fine Leader of the Opposition in normal times - but these are not normal times. The Tories are on the verge of dropping to fourth.
I really don't like Jenrick, and he should be ruled out due to the stench of corruption emanating from his dealings in government, but it feels like he's the pugilistic political street fighter that the Tories need right now. That's in part what they thought they were getting with Badenoch - someone spiky and energetic who would take the fight to the other parties - but she's been a bit like a rabbit frozen in the headlights.
Once the Tories have survived the challenge from Reform and the Lib Dems, and retained their status as the official opposition, then they can move on to a more broadly reassuring figure like Hunt (supposing an individual with real leadership ability hasn't emerged in the interim).
What is right now depends, quantum like, on the future. As a competitor in Reform's space, Jenrick is qualified to be the leader who loses such centre voters the Tories still have, and succeeds in splitting the Jenrick/Farage vote so that like Aesop's scorpions they kill each other and, at about 23% each, they come joint second well behind Labour, who, with 27/28% of the vote form the next government with LD/SNP support.
But if Jenrick means a Tory Reform electoral pact, then it is formidable, though unwelcome to me. Such a pact will win fairly easily.
In the unlikely event that the Tories wanted to rediscover role, purpose, principle, policy and a bit of hard truth telling, then Hunt looks like the only candidate for now, though not a stellar one.
Given Britain's use of the FPTP system the first task for a Tory leader is to ensure that they remain the leading party to the right of centre. This means that they absolutely must eclipse Reform and Farage. Where they fall relative to Labour is a secondary concern (though, of course, they should not admit this).
This is a historical account. A radical Tory leader might start to accept that outside the extremes the terms 'left' and 'right' have no special use because we are all slightly differing shades of social democrat. This IMO includes Reform, though for proof we shall have to await events.
Finding a place for Conservatism which ignores platitudinous fact free distinctions of left and right, and starts to think what might be a model for society once the 1945 - the present day social democrat consensus has run its course would be useful.
(The only remotely serious non social-democrats in visible politics are Corbyn style genuinely socialist and properly libertarian movements).
Jez takes the hard unionist, flog the bankers and the Jews vote from Labour. Farage takes the shut the door / flog the criminals vote from the Tories.
You’re basically left with three wishy washy status quo parties of around 10-15% each. The Centrist Dad party. Logically they should merge and consolidate their agenda for an ever growing client welfare state, paid for by easy borders and at the cost of managed gradual decline.
Or perhaps Starmer will gamble and kill off FPTP before the next election, with the aim of them all entering a grand coalition to keep out Nasty Nigel.
good point, but I would in fact contest the 'wishy washy' claim about Tory. Lab and LD even though I have no fondness for any of them at the moment.
The Lab/Con and slightly LD performance since WWII has its points, as we can see by the effects of it going awry. The social democrat state of high spend, (therefore high tax), regulated capitalism, welfare safety net, pensions, free education to 18, social services, social housing, NHS, NATO is a very good thing in a multitude of ways. To create and sustain it (and fund it) for 80 years is not a wishy washy achievement but a sustained effort.
At some point people will start to notice the obvious. Farage has not the slightest intention of dismantling any of it. Pay careful attention to what he says, and even more to what he doesn't say.
It's blatantly obvious, of course, that both Your-Corbyn and Reform would almost certainly be more fiscally incontinent than the most feckless of their predecessors.
England must surely get 500 here. Seven wickets left to get 139 runs, on an OK pitch
You're not making too many friends here Leondarmus...though it's quite the jinx gift you have.
BETTING THOUGHT
Is there any sport where the odds can vary so much, so quickly, as Test cricket?
Obviously it's unique in going on for five days, but still. Odds can swing wildly from one over to the next, and then back again within thirty minutes
Golf is similar. Very volatile. Makes for great in-running betting opportunities (and risks).
Possibly Golf is close but I still think Test cricket is unique. A side can go from 20/1 to win to 3/1 in a few minutes, then out again half an hour later. Mad
Oh no not this again. Tempted to suggest that banging on about banning should lead to a ban.
Anyone criticising the mods are getting exiled to ConHome and I will use that Farage photo on every thread header going forward.
Not to criticise your skill and judgement, but it is clearly far beyond my limited comprehension. Surely what you propose is punishing everyone *but* the miscreant?
"The Samaritans are planning to close more than 100 branches across the UK and Ireland, the BBC has learned.
In a presentation to staff, the suicide prevention charity's chief executive said "at least half" of their branches will close.
Dozens of branches have voiced concerns, some fearing the proposals will lead to an exodus of volunteers: "They're dismantling something that has worked for 70 years," said one volunteer.
The Samaritans said having more than 200 branches "is not sustainable and hinders us" from providing the best service."
Clearly Samaritans are a very good thing whose shoestrings seem to be snapping.
Back to the central mystery- why could our grandparents' society afford this and we apparently can't?
The Chief Executive did a similar thing when she ran Childline, she's like a plague of locusts. If the problem is that they need more volunteers, the solution isn't going to be closing half the branches and ask people to take calls from suicidal people (and mischief makers) from home. It's a competency issue.
There seems to be a plague of such people in the Charitable/Third Sector. They are incompetent managers to a staggering degree, moving around, collapsing organisations. A common factor is their belief in "professionalisation" - by which they mean lots of reports to/for/at/or/near/by/with/or/from senior managers, as well as hiring in expensive outside agencies. To generate more reports.
The actual operation of the organisation can go hang, as far as they are concerned.
Such people also have a rabid dislike and fear of volunteerism.
There are perhaps four types in charity management. The well meaning clueless; the venal clueless; the venal clued-up... and the well meaning clued-up.
I'm not sure of the exact proportions, but my anecdotal observation is that the last category is much smaller than any of the other three.
Given VPN services are advertised on every bloody YouTube video I am surprised there is still anybody who isn't aware what they are and haven't got one if they wanted one.
What a lot of people don't know, all the VPNs are pretty much all owned by the same Israeli company.
Seriously. If this site wants to become a kind of trainspotting Bluesky, where any challenging opinions from the right, or even centre right, are blocked and excluded, then fair enough. Tell us. You don't want to hear it and you don't like data that upsets you
Fair enough. Wr get it. Your site
But before the last of us on this side are banned, have a look at the user figures for Bluesky
Stop being such a twat. You know very well what you are trying to do. We know what you are doing, and you know very well that we know.
"The Samaritans are planning to close more than 100 branches across the UK and Ireland, the BBC has learned.
In a presentation to staff, the suicide prevention charity's chief executive said "at least half" of their branches will close.
Dozens of branches have voiced concerns, some fearing the proposals will lead to an exodus of volunteers: "They're dismantling something that has worked for 70 years," said one volunteer.
The Samaritans said having more than 200 branches "is not sustainable and hinders us" from providing the best service."
Clearly Samaritans are a very good thing whose shoestrings seem to be snapping.
Back to the central mystery- why could our grandparents' society afford this and we apparently can't?
The Chief Executive did a similar thing when she ran Childline, she's like a plague of locusts. If the problem is that they need more volunteers, the solution isn't going to be closing half the branches and ask people to take calls from suicidal people (and mischief makers) from home. It's a competency issue.
There seems to be a plague of such people in the Charitable/Third Sector. They are incompetent managers to a staggering degree, moving around, collapsing organisations. A common factor is their belief in "professionalisation" - by which they mean lots of reports to/for/at/or/near/by/with/or/from senior managers, as well as hiring in expensive outside agencies. To generate more reports.
The actual operation of the organisation can go hang, as far as they are concerned.
Such people also have a rabid dislike and fear of volunteerism.
There are perhaps four types in charity management. The well meaning clueless; the venal clueless; the venal clued-up... and the well meaning clued-up.
I'm not sure of the exact proportions, but my anecdotal observation is that the last category is much smaller than any of the other three.
Seriously. If this site wants to become a kind of trainspotting Bluesky, where any challenging opinions from the right, or even centre right, are blocked and excluded, then fair enough. Tell us. You don't want to hear it and you don't like data that upsets you
Fair enough. Wr get it. Your site
But before the last of us on this side are banned, have a look at the user figures for Bluesky
Stop being such a twat. You know very well what you are trying to do. We know what you are doing, and you know very well that we know.
So, again, it's ok to call someone a twat? That's also cool?
Given VPN services are advertised on every bloody YouTube video I am surprised there is still anybody who isn't aware what they are and haven't got one if they wanted one.
What a lot of people don't know, all the VPNs are pretty much all owned by the same Israeli company.
Given VPN services are advertised on every bloody YouTube video I am surprised there is still anybody who isn't aware what they are and haven't got one if they wanted one.
What a lot of people don't know, all the VPNs are pretty much all owned by the same Israeli company.
I thought ProtonVPN was Swiss?
ProtonVPN I think might be the odd one out. Express, Private Internet, Nord, CyberGhost, Surfshark, they are all the same company. Then IPVanish and a load of other widely advertised ones are another single company.
"South Park co-creator Trey Parker has made a short joke apology to President Donald Trump for ridiculing him in the opening show of their 27th season.
The episode, broadcast on Wednesday, made several jokes at the US president's expense, including depicting him naked in bed with Satan.
After it aired, the White House described South Park as a "fourth-rate" show that was "hanging on by a thread with uninspired ideas in a desperate attempt for attention". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz7l7g21e0yo
Seriously. If this site wants to become a kind of trainspotting Bluesky, where any challenging opinions from the right, or even centre right, are blocked and excluded, then fair enough. Tell us. You don't want to hear it and you don't like data that upsets you
Fair enough. Wr get it. Your site
But before the last of us on this side are banned, have a look at the user figures for Bluesky
"The Samaritans are planning to close more than 100 branches across the UK and Ireland, the BBC has learned.
In a presentation to staff, the suicide prevention charity's chief executive said "at least half" of their branches will close.
Dozens of branches have voiced concerns, some fearing the proposals will lead to an exodus of volunteers: "They're dismantling something that has worked for 70 years," said one volunteer.
The Samaritans said having more than 200 branches "is not sustainable and hinders us" from providing the best service."
Clearly Samaritans are a very good thing whose shoestrings seem to be snapping.
Back to the central mystery- why could our grandparents' society afford this and we apparently can't?
The Chief Executive did a similar thing when she ran Childline, she's like a plague of locusts. If the problem is that they need more volunteers, the solution isn't going to be closing half the branches and ask people to take calls from suicidal people (and mischief makers) from home. It's a competency issue.
There seems to be a plague of such people in the Charitable/Third Sector. They are incompetent managers to a staggering degree, moving around, collapsing organisations. A common factor is their belief in "professionalisation" - by which they mean lots of reports to/for/at/or/near/by/with/or/from senior managers, as well as hiring in expensive outside agencies. To generate more reports.
The actual operation of the organisation can go hang, as far as they are concerned.
Such people also have a rabid dislike and fear of volunteerism.
Amen to that.
"Professionalisation" is due to the attachment of Service Level Agreements (SLA) from funding bodies. More often than not, the funding is government derived from various pots channelled though various super organisations. Many quite capable volunteers object to having a Capability Matrix used to question their abilities and sometimes a role comes with the need for CPD too. Continuous Professional Development is costly so organisations may not wish to spend it on those at the end of their careers.
Process State in all its glories.
I know many people involved in the public sector side of such things, and they dont like it either.
"South Park co-creator Trey Parker has made a short joke apology to President Donald Trump for ridiculing him in the opening show of their 27th season.
The episode, broadcast on Wednesday, made several jokes at the US president's expense, including depicting him naked in bed with Satan.
After it aired, the White House described South Park as a "fourth-rate" show that was "hanging on by a thread with uninspired ideas in a desperate attempt for attention". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz7l7g21e0yo
"They said, 'OK, but we're gonna blur the penis,' and I said, 'No you're not gonna blur the penis,'"
"South Park co-creator Trey Parker has made a short joke apology to President Donald Trump for ridiculing him in the opening show of their 27th season.
The episode, broadcast on Wednesday, made several jokes at the US president's expense, including depicting him naked in bed with Satan.
After it aired, the White House described South Park as a "fourth-rate" show that was "hanging on by a thread with uninspired ideas in a desperate attempt for attention". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz7l7g21e0yo
Trump's reaction is entirely predictable and no doubt was predicted by Parker and Stone. I get that his supporters like him and what he has achieved, they like when he shoots back at his critics by calling them lame, irrelevant, or whatever.
But doesn't it ever get boring for them? I get bored of anti-Trump stuff sometimes, and no matter if you love the man surely his reflexive, stock counterattacks must get dull after a few hundred times?
Given VPN services are advertised on every bloody YouTube video I am surprised there is still anybody who isn't aware what they are and haven't got one if they wanted one.
What a lot of people don't know, all the VPNs are pretty much all owned by the same Israeli company.
I thought ProtonVPN was Swiss?
ProtonVPN I think might be the odd one out. Express, Private Internet, Nord, CyberGhost, Surfshark, they are all the same company. Then IPVanish and a load of other widely advertised ones are another single company.
Shame as she seemed to be in politics to achieve change rather than be professional politicians like the Alexanders. Hope she can wash out the taint of politics and resume her desire for change.
The French seem to have given some Khmer temples to Thailand when they were the colonial power in Cambodia. Or at least, not been terribly clear about where the border is. The Cambodians have a bit of a thing about the Thais as the Thais used to rule them, in fact that is apparently why they invited the French in and became a protectorate.
How that leads to F16 bombing runs and MLRS shelling I'm not sure. But apparently it happened about 10 years ago as well, and just petered out. I'm only getting slightly worried as I have flights booked to Cambodia for Dec/Jan.
(Actually I only have two short-haul flights booked as I am travelling via Malaysia and Singapore so if necessary I can go somewhere else. The only hotel I have booked is cancellable)
Given VPN services are advertised on every bloody YouTube video I am surprised there is still anybody who isn't aware what they are and haven't got one if they wanted one.
What a lot of people don't know, all the VPNs are pretty much all owned by the same Israeli company.
I thought ProtonVPN was Swiss?
ProtonVPN I think might be the odd one out. Express, Private Internet, Nord, CyberGhost, Surfshark, they are all the same company. Then IPVanish and a load of other widely advertised ones are another single company.
I was not aware of that, which is not good.
Also Kape Technologies has an "interesting" background,
Leon is half right, something I'd never normally say.
Islam is not compatible with modern British values.
Christianity isn't either. That's the bit he omits to mention.
Most people try to square those circles by blanking out significant proportions of religion as something they pretend isn't relevant. Unless it suits their agenda, in which case its very relevant.
That analysis presumes that religions have definable values that are discernable and distinct from their adherents' views. That's debatable. One could, alternatively, argue that the value of a religion are what its adherents think. Ergo, whatever lots of British Christians' values are are Christianity's values (or one form of Christianity). People aren't "blanking out significant proportions of religion"; a religion is just what those people do. If people have blanked something out, then it is no longer part of that religion.
With historically well-attested religions, one can then point out that the religion has changed and evolved. But it's harder to say your interpretation of what the religion is really about is correct and that of its adherents is wrong.
The United Nations has said Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action could be a breach of international law.
Volker Türk, the body’s human rights chief, accused the Labour government of a “disproportionate and unnecessary” ban after the group spray-painted an RAF aircraft red last month.
He said banning a group that does not threaten death or serious injury “misuses the gravity and impact of terrorism” and that it could breach the right to freedom of expression for protesters.
The number of people who have picked PA as the hill to die on is very odd. There are loads of other groups you can be active in to raise the Palestinian plight and to critise Israel and the government will not be banning them.
The French seem to have given some Khmer temples to Thailand when they were the colonial power in Cambodia. Or at least, not been terribly clear about where the border is. The Cambodians have a bit of a thing about the Thais as the Thais used to rule them, in fact that is apparently why they invited the French in and became a protectorate.
How that leads to F16 bombing runs and MLRS shelling I'm not sure. But apparently it happened about 10 years ago as well, and just petered out. I'm only getting slightly worried as I have flights booked to Cambodia for Dec/Jan.
(Actually I only have two short-haul flights booked as I am travelling via Malaysia and Singapore so if necessary I can go somewhere else. The only hotel I have booked is cancellable)
The Thai vs Cambodia squabble is a bit alarming to us as our daughter-in-law comes from close to the affected area. Her parents farm is quite close to the border. So far all's well but we wouldn't be too surprised to hear that our son has has his in-laws staying with him.
Seriously. If this site wants to become a kind of trainspotting Bluesky, where any challenging opinions from the right, or even centre right, are blocked and excluded, then fair enough. Tell us. You don't want to hear it and you don't like data that upsets you
Fair enough. Wr get it. Your site
But before the last of us on this side are banned, have a look at the user figures for Bluesky
Oh FFS.
READ MY FUCKING POST at 1.34pm
And now you're abusive, to a commenter, at 1.38pm
Whereas you specifically told us not to be abusive. as that is a banning offense
If you can't tell the difference between exasperation and abuse, then I seriously fear for your next cognitive test.
This faux victimhood schtick really doesn't suit you.
It's not like Pope Leon, the Bishop of Tupsley, has never used profanity on this board.
The United Nations has said Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action could be a breach of international law.
Volker Türk, the body’s human rights chief, accused the Labour government of a “disproportionate and unnecessary” ban after the group spray-painted an RAF aircraft red last month.
He said banning a group that does not threaten death or serious injury “misuses the gravity and impact of terrorism” and that it could breach the right to freedom of expression for protesters.
The number of people who have picked PA as the hill to die on is very odd. There are loads of other groups you can be active in to raise the Palestinian plight and to critise Israel and the government will not be banning them.
Infantile Leftists see the word “Palestine” and assume they are martyrs.
Given VPN services are advertised on every bloody YouTube video I am surprised there is still anybody who isn't aware what they are and haven't got one if they wanted one.
What a lot of people don't know, all the VPNs are pretty much all owned by the same Israeli company.
I thought ProtonVPN was Swiss?
ProtonVPN I think might be the odd one out. Express, Private Internet, Nord, CyberGhost, Surfshark, they are all the same company. Then IPVanish and a load of other widely advertised ones are another single company.
Leon is half right, something I'd never normally say.
Islam is not compatible with modern British values.
Christianity isn't either. That's the bit he omits to mention.
Most people try to square those circles by blanking out significant proportions of religion as something they pretend isn't relevant. Unless it suits their agenda, in which case its very relevant.
Leon is half right, something I'd never normally say.
Islam is not compatible with modern British values.
Christianity isn't either. That's the bit he omits to mention.
Most people try to square those circles by blanking out significant proportions of religion as something they pretend isn't relevant. Unless it suits their agenda, in which case its very relevant.
The United Nations has said Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action could be a breach of international law.
Volker Türk, the body’s human rights chief, accused the Labour government of a “disproportionate and unnecessary” ban after the group spray-painted an RAF aircraft red last month.
He said banning a group that does not threaten death or serious injury “misuses the gravity and impact of terrorism” and that it could breach the right to freedom of expression for protesters.
The number of people who have picked PA as the hill to die on is very odd. There are loads of other groups you can be active in to raise the Palestinian plight and to critise Israel and the government will not be banning them.
Groups should not be proscribed lightly but this sounds like another case of a UN apparatchik sounding off with greater weight given to their personal opinion than is justified.
Leon is half right, something I'd never normally say.
Islam is not compatible with modern British values.
Christianity isn't either. That's the bit he omits to mention.
Most people try to square those circles by blanking out significant proportions of religion as something they pretend isn't relevant. Unless it suits their agenda, in which case its very relevant.
That analysis presumes that religions have definable values that are discernable and distinct from their adherents' views. That's debatable. One could, alternatively, argue that the value of a religion are what its adherents think. Ergo, whatever lots of British Christians' values are are Christianity's values (or one form of Christianity). People aren't "blanking out significant proportions of religion"; a religion is just what those people do. If people have blanked something out, then it is no longer part of that religion.
With historically well-attested religions, one can then point out that the religion has changed and evolved. But it's harder to say your interpretation of what the religion is really about is correct and that of its adherents is wrong.
Probably the clearest model example is the Catholic Church. Tons of adherents. Quite clear doctrine expounded under the aegis of the Papacy.
Vast numbers of adherents go against the church's teachings on contraception, remarriage, abortion etc. And yet they head to church every Sunday.
Given VPN services are advertised on every bloody YouTube video I am surprised there is still anybody who isn't aware what they are and haven't got one if they wanted one.
What a lot of people don't know, all the VPNs are pretty much all owned by the same Israeli company.
I thought ProtonVPN was Swiss?
ProtonVPN I think might be the odd one out. Express, Private Internet, Nord, CyberGhost, Surfshark, they are all the same company. Then IPVanish and a load of other widely advertised ones are another single company.
Nord is Lithuanian
Sorry I got that wrong, Nord actually now owns Surfshark, Nord, Atlas....
But there has quietly over the past 2-3 years massive consolidation, but I doubt it will be long until its even fewer companies.
The whole industry is rather shady in terms of there is quite a lot of hidden ownership and opaque structuring. Who actually owns and runs the servers you are connecting to is another issue, despite what a brand might say.
Given VPN services are advertised on every bloody YouTube video I am surprised there is still anybody who isn't aware what they are and haven't got one if they wanted one.
What a lot of people don't know, all the VPNs are pretty much all owned by the same Israeli company.
I thought ProtonVPN was Swiss?
ProtonVPN I think might be the odd one out. Express, Private Internet, Nord, CyberGhost, Surfshark, they are all the same company. Then IPVanish and a load of other widely advertised ones are another single company.
Leon is half right, something I'd never normally say.
Islam is not compatible with modern British values.
Christianity isn't either. That's the bit he omits to mention.
Most people try to square those circles by blanking out significant proportions of religion as something they pretend isn't relevant. Unless it suits their agenda, in which case its very relevant.
46% of England and Wales are Christian on the last census and another 6% Muslim so combined they make up the majority of the population
That doesn't argue the point at all, so very on brand. The point was surely that religious people, like all people, are not ideologically consistent 100% of the time and so give greater priority to some bits than others to get by in a more secular time?
As a religious man yourself you presumably cannot adhere to biblical provisions every minute of every day, and He probably doesn't expect it and forgives?
From a New Statesman briefing on the Junior Doctor's strike. After, basically, debunking the case for the strike (or, rather the selective use of wage rates/inflation etc), it concludes thus:
"This doesn’t mean doctors don’t have a right to be annoyed about the compression of their pay. As I’ve written previously, our tax system disproportionately raises money from people in exactly the sort of pay brackets doctors are in, with some very high marginal rates, while they have very large student loans to pay off and their salaries no longer have the same power in the housing market. Their story is part of a wider story of the middle classes in Britain remaining fairly static in real earnings while people on lower incomes rise to meet them and the pay of a small elite takes off. And in that sense the doctors’ strike, while its numbers may be debatable, augurs something very real and more widespread: the creeping spread of middle-class rage at the disappearing prospects of professional life."
England must surely get 500 here. Seven wickets left to get 139 runs, on an OK pitch
You're not making too many friends here Leondarmus...though it's quite the jinx gift you have.
BETTING THOUGHT
Is there any sport where the odds can vary so much, so quickly, as Test cricket?
Obviously it's unique in going on for five days, but still. Odds can swing wildly from one over to the next, and then back again within thirty minutes
One-day cricket and 20-20 cricket, where a boundary or a wicket at the death can turn the odds round faster than an EU referendum or a 2016 presidential election.
Given VPN services are advertised on every bloody YouTube video I am surprised there is still anybody who isn't aware what they are and haven't got one if they wanted one.
What a lot of people don't know, all the VPNs are pretty much all owned by the same Israeli company.
I thought ProtonVPN was Swiss?
ProtonVPN I think might be the odd one out. Express, Private Internet, Nord, CyberGhost, Surfshark, they are all the same company. Then IPVanish and a load of other widely advertised ones are another single company.
Nord is Lithuanian
and, unusually, has transparent ownership
But less transparent about pricing and how to cancel,
Zack Polanski, the Green party leadership candidate, has said he may be willing to cooperate with a new leftwing party led by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana, after calls for the two groups to form an alliance.
Polanski emphasised that any decision would be for Green members, and would depend on the eventual form of the as yet unnamed party, which currently does not officially exist.
His comments to the Guardian open up a divide with his competitors for the leadership, Adrian Ramsay and Ellie Chowns, who have warned against the Greens becoming “a Jeremy Corbyn support act”.
From a New Statesman briefing on the Junior Doctor's strike. After, basically, debunking the case for the strike (or, rather the selective use of wage rates/inflation etc), it concludes thus:
"This doesn’t mean doctors don’t have a right to be annoyed about the compression of their pay. As I’ve written previously, our tax system disproportionately raises money from people in exactly the sort of pay brackets doctors are in, with some very high marginal rates, while they have very large student loans to pay off and their salaries no longer have the same power in the housing market. Their story is part of a wider story of the middle classes in Britain remaining fairly static in real earnings while people on lower incomes rise to meet them and the pay of a small elite takes off. And in that sense the doctors’ strike, while its numbers may be debatable, augurs something very real and more widespread: the creeping spread of middle-class rage at the disappearing prospects of professional life."
This is surely having political consequences.
Everyone's annoyed about pay being lower than 2008.
Leon is half right, something I'd never normally say.
Islam is not compatible with modern British values.
Christianity isn't either. That's the bit he omits to mention.
Most people try to square those circles by blanking out significant proportions of religion as something they pretend isn't relevant. Unless it suits their agenda, in which case its very relevant.
46% of England and Wales are Christian on the last census and another 6% Muslim so combined they make up the majority of the population
That doesn't argue the point at all, so very on brand. The point was surely that religious people, like all people, are not ideologically consistent 100% of the time and so give greater priority to some bits than others to get by in a more secular time?
As a religious man yourself you presumably cannot adhere to biblical provisions every minute of every day, and He probably doesn't expect it and forgives?
If you are a Christian yes, hence Christ forgives those who repent which is why the New Testament is less judgemental than the Old Testament.
We are also a nation of Christian heritage which is now still more Christian, 46% on last census, than irreligious, 37% on last census
From a New Statesman briefing on the Junior Doctor's strike. After, basically, debunking the case for the strike (or, rather the selective use of wage rates/inflation etc), it concludes thus:
"This doesn’t mean doctors don’t have a right to be annoyed about the compression of their pay. As I’ve written previously, our tax system disproportionately raises money from people in exactly the sort of pay brackets doctors are in, with some very high marginal rates, while they have very large student loans to pay off and their salaries no longer have the same power in the housing market. Their story is part of a wider story of the middle classes in Britain remaining fairly static in real earnings while people on lower incomes rise to meet them and the pay of a small elite takes off. And in that sense the doctors’ strike, while its numbers may be debatable, augurs something very real and more widespread: the creeping spread of middle-class rage at the disappearing prospects of professional life."
This is surely having political consequences.
That is spot on and painfully familiar. Private education, housing costs, the never ending in the base costs of IT systems and streamers, what used to be very comfortable no longer is and its getting worse.
From a New Statesman briefing on the Junior Doctor's strike. After, basically, debunking the case for the strike (or, rather the selective use of wage rates/inflation etc), it concludes thus:
"This doesn’t mean doctors don’t have a right to be annoyed about the compression of their pay. As I’ve written previously, our tax system disproportionately raises money from people in exactly the sort of pay brackets doctors are in, with some very high marginal rates, while they have very large student loans to pay off and their salaries no longer have the same power in the housing market. Their story is part of a wider story of the middle classes in Britain remaining fairly static in real earnings while people on lower incomes rise to meet them and the pay of a small elite takes off. And in that sense the doctors’ strike, while its numbers may be debatable, augurs something very real and more widespread: the creeping spread of middle-class rage at the disappearing prospects of professional life."
This is surely having political consequences.
That is spot on and painfully familiar. Private education, housing costs, the never ending in the base costs of IT systems and streamers, what used to be very comfortable no longer is and its getting worse.
I think Hunt would make a fine Leader of the Opposition in normal times - but these are not normal times. The Tories are on the verge of dropping to fourth.
I really don't like Jenrick, and he should be ruled out due to the stench of corruption emanating from his dealings in government, but it feels like he's the pugilistic political street fighter that the Tories need right now. That's in part what they thought they were getting with Badenoch - someone spiky and energetic who would take the fight to the other parties - but she's been a bit like a rabbit frozen in the headlights.
Once the Tories have survived the challenge from Reform and the Lib Dems, and retained their status as the official opposition, then they can move on to a more broadly reassuring figure like Hunt (supposing an individual with real leadership ability hasn't emerged in the interim).
What is right now depends, quantum like, on the future. As a competitor in Reform's space, Jenrick is qualified to be the leader who loses such centre voters the Tories still have, and succeeds in splitting the Jenrick/Farage vote so that like Aesop's scorpions they kill each other and, at about 23% each, they come joint second well behind Labour, who, with 27/28% of the vote form the next government with LD/SNP support.
But if Jenrick means a Tory Reform electoral pact, then it is formidable, though unwelcome to me. Such a pact will win fairly easily.
In the unlikely event that the Tories wanted to rediscover role, purpose, principle, policy and a bit of hard truth telling, then Hunt looks like the only candidate for now, though not a stellar one.
Given Britain's use of the FPTP system the first task for a Tory leader is to ensure that they remain the leading party to the right of centre. This means that they absolutely must eclipse Reform and Farage. Where they fall relative to Labour is a secondary concern (though, of course, they should not admit this).
This is a historical account. A radical Tory leader might start to accept that outside the extremes the terms 'left' and 'right' have no special use because we are all slightly differing shades of social democrat. This IMO includes Reform, though for proof we shall have to await events.
Finding a place for Conservatism which ignores platitudinous fact free distinctions of left and right, and starts to think what might be a model for society once the 1945 - the present day social democrat consensus has run its course would be useful.
(The only remotely serious non social-democrats in visible politics are Corbyn style genuinely socialist and properly libertarian movements).
Jez takes the hard unionist, flog the bankers and the Jews vote from Labour. Farage takes the shut the door / flog the criminals vote from the Tories.
You’re basically left with three wishy washy status quo parties of around 10-15% each. The Centrist Dad party. Logically they should merge and consolidate their agenda for an ever growing client welfare state, paid for by easy borders and at the cost of managed gradual decline.
Or perhaps Starmer will gamble and kill off FPTP before the next election, with the aim of them all entering a grand coalition to keep out Nasty Nigel.
good point, but I would in fact contest the 'wishy washy' claim about Tory. Lab and LD even though I have no fondness for any of them at the moment.
The Lab/Con and slightly LD performance since WWII has its points, as we can see by the effects of it going awry. The social democrat state of high spend, (therefore high tax), regulated capitalism, welfare safety net, pensions, free education to 18, social services, social housing, NHS, NATO is a very good thing in a multitude of ways. To create and sustain it (and fund it) for 80 years is not a wishy washy achievement but a sustained effort.
At some point people will start to notice the obvious. Farage has not the slightest intention of dismantling any of it. Pay careful attention to what he says, and even more to what he doesn't say.
It's blatantly obvious, of course, that both Your-Corbyn and Reform would almost certainly be more fiscally incontinent than the most feckless of their predecessors.
M'Lud; evidence item number one for the defence: Boris Johnson. Evidence item number two: Elizabeth Truss.
From a New Statesman briefing on the Junior Doctor's strike. After, basically, debunking the case for the strike (or, rather the selective use of wage rates/inflation etc), it concludes thus:
"This doesn’t mean doctors don’t have a right to be annoyed about the compression of their pay. As I’ve written previously, our tax system disproportionately raises money from people in exactly the sort of pay brackets doctors are in, with some very high marginal rates, while they have very large student loans to pay off and their salaries no longer have the same power in the housing market. Their story is part of a wider story of the middle classes in Britain remaining fairly static in real earnings while people on lower incomes rise to meet them and the pay of a small elite takes off. And in that sense the doctors’ strike, while its numbers may be debatable, augurs something very real and more widespread: the creeping spread of middle-class rage at the disappearing prospects of professional life."
This is surely having political consequences.
That is spot on and painfully familiar. Private education, housing costs, the never ending in the base costs of IT systems and streamers, what used to be very comfortable no longer is and its getting worse.
And some of that is good for society. Alan Clark has a chunk of his diaries where he laments his inability to afford servants. It's better all round that more people are doing broadly useful things rather than tending the elite.
But the big one is housing, which might be why it's younger doctors who are do narked.
Leon is half right, something I'd never normally say.
Islam is not compatible with modern British values.
Christianity isn't either. That's the bit he omits to mention.
Most people try to square those circles by blanking out significant proportions of religion as something they pretend isn't relevant. Unless it suits their agenda, in which case its very relevant.
46% of England and Wales are Christian on the last census and another 6% Muslim so combined they make up the majority of the population
That doesn't argue the point at all, so very on brand. The point was surely that religious people, like all people, are not ideologically consistent 100% of the time and so give greater priority to some bits than others to get by in a more secular time?
As a religious man yourself you presumably cannot adhere to biblical provisions every minute of every day, and He probably doesn't expect it and forgives?
If you are a Christian yes, hence Christ forgives those who repent which is why the New Testament is less judgemental than the Old Testament.
We are also a nation of Christian heritage which is now still more Christian, 46% on last census, than irreligious, 37% on last census
But less Christian (46%) than not Christian (54%).
Zack Polanski, the Green party leadership candidate, has said he may be willing to cooperate with a new leftwing party led by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana, after calls for the two groups to form an alliance.
Polanski emphasised that any decision would be for Green members, and would depend on the eventual form of the as yet unnamed party, which currently does not officially exist.
His comments to the Guardian open up a divide with his competitors for the leadership, Adrian Ramsay and Ellie Chowns, who have warned against the Greens becoming “a Jeremy Corbyn support act”.
From a New Statesman briefing on the Junior Doctor's strike. After, basically, debunking the case for the strike (or, rather the selective use of wage rates/inflation etc), it concludes thus:
"This doesn’t mean doctors don’t have a right to be annoyed about the compression of their pay. As I’ve written previously, our tax system disproportionately raises money from people in exactly the sort of pay brackets doctors are in, with some very high marginal rates, while they have very large student loans to pay off and their salaries no longer have the same power in the housing market. Their story is part of a wider story of the middle classes in Britain remaining fairly static in real earnings while people on lower incomes rise to meet them and the pay of a small elite takes off. And in that sense the doctors’ strike, while its numbers may be debatable, augurs something very real and more widespread: the creeping spread of middle-class rage at the disappearing prospects of professional life."
This is surely having political consequences.
That is spot on and painfully familiar. Private education, housing costs, the never ending in the base costs of IT systems and streamers, what used to be very comfortable no longer is and its getting worse.
90% of the population never went to private school, 100 years ago most adults didn’t even own a house even as pensioners but rented
Leon is half right, something I'd never normally say.
Islam is not compatible with modern British values.
Christianity isn't either. That's the bit he omits to mention.
Most people try to square those circles by blanking out significant proportions of religion as something they pretend isn't relevant. Unless it suits their agenda, in which case its very relevant.
46% of England and Wales are Christian on the last census and another 6% Muslim so combined they make up the majority of the population
That doesn't argue the point at all, so very on brand. The point was surely that religious people, like all people, are not ideologically consistent 100% of the time and so give greater priority to some bits than others to get by in a more secular time?
As a religious man yourself you presumably cannot adhere to biblical provisions every minute of every day, and He probably doesn't expect it and forgives?
If you are a Christian yes, hence Christ forgives those who repent which is why the New Testament is less judgemental than the Old Testament.
We are also a nation of Christian heritage which is now still more Christian, 46% on last census, than irreligious, 37% on last census
But less Christian (46%) than not Christian (54%).
But 52% Christian or Muslim despite Bart saying neither were compatible with British values
Zack Polanski, the Green party leadership candidate, has said he may be willing to cooperate with a new leftwing party led by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana, after calls for the two groups to form an alliance.
Polanski emphasised that any decision would be for Green members, and would depend on the eventual form of the as yet unnamed party, which currently does not officially exist.
His comments to the Guardian open up a divide with his competitors for the leadership, Adrian Ramsay and Ellie Chowns, who have warned against the Greens becoming “a Jeremy Corbyn support act”.
Ramsey and Chowns are right. If there ever was a point in a Polanski hard left tilt it was because the alternate socialist party had failed to appear. That's not the case anymore.
The United Nations has said Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action could be a breach of international law.
Volker Türk, the body’s human rights chief, accused the Labour government of a “disproportionate and unnecessary” ban after the group spray-painted an RAF aircraft red last month.
He said banning a group that does not threaten death or serious injury “misuses the gravity and impact of terrorism” and that it could breach the right to freedom of expression for protesters.
The number of people who have picked PA as the hill to die on is very odd. There are loads of other groups you can be active in to raise the Palestinian plight and to critise Israel and the government will not be banning them.
If they had stuck to spray painting statues or paintings, or even Whitehall I would agree. But they didn't. They went after military hardware and by doing so potentially imperilled the nation. Big mistake. They got what they deserved.
This is Bazball mark II. 432 runs from 101 overs so over 4 runs an over. Traditionally on days when a side has batted like this the last session can see an acceleration as the bowlers and fielders are tired. I would not be surprised to see 6 an over after tea and another 150 -180 runs added by the close.
Zack Polanski, the Green party leadership candidate, has said he may be willing to cooperate with a new leftwing party led by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana, after calls for the two groups to form an alliance.
Polanski emphasised that any decision would be for Green members, and would depend on the eventual form of the as yet unnamed party, which currently does not officially exist.
His comments to the Guardian open up a divide with his competitors for the leadership, Adrian Ramsay and Ellie Chowns, who have warned against the Greens becoming “a Jeremy Corbyn support act”.
A bit like Carney in Canada i dont think id even noticed mention of the non Polanski pair previously. So i assume he is winning big or the Green membership is less driven by nedia hype than most.
The United Nations has said Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action could be a breach of international law.
Volker Türk, the body’s human rights chief, accused the Labour government of a “disproportionate and unnecessary” ban after the group spray-painted an RAF aircraft red last month.
He said banning a group that does not threaten death or serious injury “misuses the gravity and impact of terrorism” and that it could breach the right to freedom of expression for protesters.
The number of people who have picked PA as the hill to die on is very odd. There are loads of other groups you can be active in to raise the Palestinian plight and to critise Israel and the government will not be banning them.
If they had stuck to spray painting statues or paintings, or even Whitehall I would agree. But they didn't. They went after military hardware and by doing so potentially imperilled the nation. Big mistake. They got what they deserved.
Please don't let Putin know a lick of pink paint is great for instantly rendering military hardware useless.
The United Nations has said Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action could be a breach of international law.
Volker Türk, the body’s human rights chief, accused the Labour government of a “disproportionate and unnecessary” ban after the group spray-painted an RAF aircraft red last month.
He said banning a group that does not threaten death or serious injury “misuses the gravity and impact of terrorism” and that it could breach the right to freedom of expression for protesters.
The number of people who have picked PA as the hill to die on is very odd. There are loads of other groups you can be active in to raise the Palestinian plight and to critise Israel and the government will not be banning them.
If they had stuck to spray painting statues or paintings, or even Whitehall I would agree. But they didn't. They went after military hardware and by doing so potentially imperilled the nation. Big mistake. They got what they deserved.
I guess the defenders are unintentionally saying as long as you don’t do anything violent breaking into military areas is ok? As if the authorities know the intentions of everyone who might do that.
Leon is half right, something I'd never normally say.
Islam is not compatible with modern British values.
Christianity isn't either. That's the bit he omits to mention.
Most people try to square those circles by blanking out significant proportions of religion as something they pretend isn't relevant. Unless it suits their agenda, in which case its very relevant.
46% of England and Wales are Christian on the last census and another 6% Muslim so combined they make up the majority of the population
That doesn't argue the point at all, so very on brand. The point was surely that religious people, like all people, are not ideologically consistent 100% of the time and so give greater priority to some bits than others to get by in a more secular time?
As a religious man yourself you presumably cannot adhere to biblical provisions every minute of every day, and He probably doesn't expect it and forgives?
If you are a Christian yes, hence Christ forgives those who repent which is why the New Testament is less judgemental than the Old Testament.
So the idea even Christians compromise on some of the religious detail day to day in order to get by should not offend. All are sinners.
The United Nations has said Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action could be a breach of international law.
Volker Türk, the body’s human rights chief, accused the Labour government of a “disproportionate and unnecessary” ban after the group spray-painted an RAF aircraft red last month.
He said banning a group that does not threaten death or serious injury “misuses the gravity and impact of terrorism” and that it could breach the right to freedom of expression for protesters.
The number of people who have picked PA as the hill to die on is very odd. There are loads of other groups you can be active in to raise the Palestinian plight and to critise Israel and the government will not be banning them.
If they had stuck to spray painting statues or paintings, or even Whitehall I would agree. But they didn't. They went after military hardware and by doing so potentially imperilled the nation. Big mistake. They got what they deserved.
Please don't let Putin know a lick of pink paint is great for instantly rendering military hardware useless.
Could they be trusted to stick to paint next time?
It was a totally unnecessary step when many other types of protest exist and are effective - even ones which might also result in charges but not proscription.
Whichever idiot came up with the plan should be lambasted by the rest of the group .
Leon is half right, something I'd never normally say.
Islam is not compatible with modern British values.
Christianity isn't either. That's the bit he omits to mention.
Most people try to square those circles by blanking out significant proportions of religion as something they pretend isn't relevant. Unless it suits their agenda, in which case its very relevant.
46% of England and Wales are Christian on the last census and another 6% Muslim so combined they make up the majority of the population
That doesn't argue the point at all, so very on brand. The point was surely that religious people, like all people, are not ideologically consistent 100% of the time and so give greater priority to some bits than others to get by in a more secular time?
As a religious man yourself you presumably cannot adhere to biblical provisions every minute of every day, and He probably doesn't expect it and forgives?
If you are a Christian yes, hence Christ forgives those who repent which is why the New Testament is less judgemental than the Old Testament.
So the idea even Christians compromise on some of the religious detail day to day in order to get by should not offend. All are sinners.
The thing rather missing from this subthread is much definition of, or engagement with, the meaning of "Christian values", "Muslim values", and "modern British values".
Whose "modern British values"? Andrew Tate's, Nigel Farage's, Ed Davey's, Ash Sarkar's, Yayha Birt's (John Birt's son who converted to Islam), your local Vicar's, Dr Evan Harris's ? Or somebody else's? These are all part of modern Britain and therefore contribute part of "modern British values".
Without such it is like trying to do exact calculations using the "numbers" x, y and z.
Which is one reason why I am off for my 2nd constitutional.
Leon is half right, something I'd never normally say.
Islam is not compatible with modern British values.
Christianity isn't either. That's the bit he omits to mention.
Most people try to square those circles by blanking out significant proportions of religion as something they pretend isn't relevant. Unless it suits their agenda, in which case its very relevant.
46% of England and Wales are Christian on the last census and another 6% Muslim so combined they make up the majority of the population
That doesn't argue the point at all, so very on brand. The point was surely that religious people, like all people, are not ideologically consistent 100% of the time and so give greater priority to some bits than others to get by in a more secular time?
As a religious man yourself you presumably cannot adhere to biblical provisions every minute of every day, and He probably doesn't expect it and forgives?
If you are a Christian yes, hence Christ forgives those who repent which is why the New Testament is less judgemental than the Old Testament.
So the idea even Christians compromise on some of the religious detail day to day in order to get by should not offend. All are sinners.
"even Christians compromise" is interesting.
I would argue that exploring compromise, and perhaps drawing back from it, is part of the process of development of a tradition - and is needed for any tradition not to atrophy. That is why imo having some tradition of thought and philosophy and practice is important in both orthodoxy and orthopraxis.
At some stage in the next 3-4 weeks I'm going to a service of (call it what you will - I'm going with "Apprecation") for a 40 year friend who started out as an Elim Pentecostal and ended up 30 years later running Inclusiveness day conferences and workshops in the Church of England Manchester Diocese, including trans - though not necessarily anyone's particular version of "trans". I suspect they started from a central doctrine such as "All are made in the image of God", rather than an outworking such as "you must do THIS", and explored a dialogue from that starting position of respect.
Thinking we have "the answer" can be perilous, in that it can stop development; depending on how comprehensively we define "the answer" that we think we have. That brings me back to my argument that Evangelicalism (or indeed other traditions) we sometimes see which is convinced that it all is completely defined and wrapped-up is a religious version of Modernist certainty. I'd argue that the same applies to traditions that think of themselves as outside religion, because it is a human habit not a religious habit.
Comments
OK I'd be happy with 460
*nervous chuckle*
Catholicism was seen as being antithetical to English values at the time.
If we see Islam in a similar light now, do we adopt a similar response - ban the outward trappings - the hijab, the burqa etc, close down the madrassas? I've seen people on other forums call for the mass deportation of all British Muslims for example.
I presume no one is thinking along those lines so it's back presumably to education on both sides.
Is there any sport where the odds can vary so much, so quickly, as Test cricket?
Obviously it's unique in going on for five days, but still. Odds can swing wildly from one over to the next, and then back again within thirty minutes
The Lab/Con and slightly LD performance since WWII has its points, as we can see by the effects of it going awry. The social democrat state of high spend, (therefore high tax), regulated capitalism, welfare safety net, pensions, free education to 18, social services, social housing, NHS, NATO is a very good thing in a multitude of ways. To create and sustain it (and fund it) for 80 years is not a wishy washy achievement but a sustained effort.
At some point people will start to notice the obvious. Farage has not the slightest intention of dismantling any of it. Pay careful attention to what he says, and even more to what he doesn't say.
It's the turning them into performative bullshit which is so hateful.
There is one individual I know who has worked their way up various conservation organisations who manages to de-recruit volunteers at a prodigious rate.
An acquaintance who is one of the last people to ever get worked up about anything and is friends to many volunteer organisations and well known in the field resigned his (paid for) life membership in protest along with several others and yet the juggernaut ploughs on.
Why is it so hard to get rid of these people?
I was involved with a small housing association, established by clergy in 1967. Congregations were encouraged to donate, so as to buy properties to house people, who could not obtain mortgages. The charity flourished to the point it be became just another housing association, with high-paid management, and almost no voluntary involvement.
The UK introduced “robust” age checks for porn and other online content today
Also related: VPN interest massively up in the UK, according to Google Trends
https://bsky.app/profile/mattburgess1.bsky.social/post/3lurwehzkkc2w
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-starmer-labour-badenoch-reshuffle-farage-12593360
The well meaning clueless; the venal clueless; the venal clued-up... and the well meaning clued-up.
I'm not sure of the exact proportions, but my anecdotal observation is that the last category is much smaller than any of the other three.
What a lot of people don't know, all the VPNs are pretty much all owned by the same Israeli company.
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/thailand-declares-martial-law-in-8-districts-bordering-cambodia-after-deadly-clashes-news-agency-afp-8949722
"South Park co-creator Trey Parker has made a short joke apology to President Donald Trump for ridiculing him in the opening show of their 27th season.
The episode, broadcast on Wednesday, made several jokes at the US president's expense, including depicting him naked in bed with Satan.
After it aired, the White House described South Park as a "fourth-rate" show that was "hanging on by a thread with uninspired ideas in a desperate attempt for attention".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz7l7g21e0yo
But doesn't it ever get boring for them? I get bored of anti-Trump stuff sometimes, and no matter if you love the man surely his reflexive, stock counterattacks must get dull after a few hundred times?
How that leads to F16 bombing runs and MLRS shelling I'm not sure. But apparently it happened about 10 years ago as well, and just petered out. I'm only getting slightly worried as I have flights booked to Cambodia for Dec/Jan.
(Actually I only have two short-haul flights booked as I am travelling via Malaysia and Singapore so if necessary I can go somewhere else. The only hotel I have booked is cancellable)
https://windscribe.com/blog/what-is-kape-technologies/
With historically well-attested religions, one can then point out that the religion has changed and evolved. But it's harder to say your interpretation of what the religion is really about is correct and that of its adherents is wrong.
Volker Türk, the body’s human rights chief, accused the Labour government of a “disproportionate and unnecessary” ban after the group spray-painted an RAF aircraft red last month.
He said banning a group that does not threaten death or serious injury “misuses the gravity and impact of terrorism” and that it could breach the right to freedom of expression for protesters.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/07/25/starmers-palestine-action-ban-could-be-breaking-internation/
I wonder what Lord Hermer thinks?
The number of people who have picked PA as the hill to die on is very odd. There are loads of other groups you can be active in to raise the Palestinian plight and to critise Israel and the government will not be banning them.
46% of England and Wales are Christian on the last census and another 6% Muslim so combined they make up the majority of the population
JOE ROOT
Vast numbers of adherents go against the church's teachings on contraception, remarriage, abortion etc. And yet they head to church every Sunday.
But there has quietly over the past 2-3 years massive consolidation, but I doubt it will be long until its even fewer companies.
The whole industry is rather shady in terms of there is quite a lot of hidden ownership and opaque structuring. Who actually owns and runs the servers you are connecting to is another issue, despite what a brand might say.
As a religious man yourself you presumably cannot adhere to biblical provisions every minute of every day, and He probably doesn't expect it and forgives?
"This doesn’t mean doctors don’t have a right to be annoyed about the compression of their pay. As I’ve written previously, our tax system disproportionately raises money from people in exactly the sort of pay brackets doctors are in, with some very high marginal rates, while they have very large student loans to pay off and their salaries no longer have the same power in the housing market. Their story is part of a wider story of the middle classes in Britain remaining fairly static in real earnings while people on lower incomes rise to meet them and the pay of a small elite takes off. And in that sense the doctors’ strike, while its numbers may be debatable, augurs something very real and more widespread: the creeping spread of middle-class rage at the disappearing prospects of professional life."
This is surely having political consequences.
https://www.tomsguide.com/computing/vpns/world-famous-vpn-company-embroiled-in-class-action-lawsuit
Polanski emphasised that any decision would be for Green members, and would depend on the eventual form of the as yet unnamed party, which currently does not officially exist.
His comments to the Guardian open up a divide with his competitors for the leadership, Adrian Ramsay and Ellie Chowns, who have warned against the Greens becoming “a Jeremy Corbyn support act”.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jul/25/zack-polanski-green-party-alliance-jeremy-corbyn-zarah-sultana-new-party
We are also a nation of Christian heritage which is now still more Christian, 46% on last census, than irreligious, 37% on last census
My increase was absolutely ridiculous this year.
NEW THREAD
But the big one is housing, which might be why it's younger doctors who are do narked.
It was a totally unnecessary step when many other types of protest exist and are effective - even ones which might also result in charges but not proscription.
Whichever idiot came up with the plan should be lambasted by the rest of the group .
Whose "modern British values"? Andrew Tate's, Nigel Farage's, Ed Davey's, Ash Sarkar's, Yayha Birt's (John Birt's son who converted to Islam), your local Vicar's, Dr Evan Harris's ? Or somebody else's? These are all part of modern Britain and therefore contribute part of "modern British values".
Without such it is like trying to do exact calculations using the "numbers" x, y and z.
Which is one reason why I am off for my 2nd constitutional.
play nicely, it's sunny here and 24C.
I would argue that exploring compromise, and perhaps drawing back from it, is part of the process of development of a tradition - and is needed for any tradition not to atrophy. That is why imo having some tradition of thought and philosophy and practice is important in both orthodoxy and orthopraxis.
At some stage in the next 3-4 weeks I'm going to a service of (call it what you will - I'm going with "Apprecation") for a 40 year friend who started out as an Elim Pentecostal and ended up 30 years later running Inclusiveness day conferences and workshops in the Church of England Manchester Diocese, including trans - though not necessarily anyone's particular version of "trans". I suspect they started from a central doctrine such as "All are made in the image of God", rather than an outworking such as "you must do THIS", and explored a dialogue from that starting position of respect.
Thinking we have "the answer" can be perilous, in that it can stop development; depending on how comprehensively we define "the answer" that we think we have. That brings me back to my argument that Evangelicalism (or indeed other traditions) we sometimes see which is convinced that it all is completely defined and wrapped-up is a religious version of Modernist certainty. I'd argue that the same applies to traditions that think of themselves as outside religion, because it is a human habit not a religious habit.
Reelect the Right Parties - The Corbyn Project.