Starmer losing his deputy pm and US Ambassador in a week of sleaze is a Boris level crisis for him
You have had a great week, having personally taken two Labour scalps and a probability of the PM too, but Boris levels of sleaze is too far by a country mile.
The BBC have tasted blood and won't stop until Farage is in No10.
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I hadn't heard of him either.
Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing. After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.
I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".
It is perfectly possible to be thoroughly nasty piece of work and a Biblical Christian. His views on stoning gays, that slavery is fine and dandy and that women should be subservient are all backed in scripture.
It doesn't justify his murder of course. However improbable, I would have preferred him to study and absorb the Sermon on the Mount, and to repent of his intolerance, welcoming the stranger, feeding the poor, visiting criminals in jail etc. The killer has denied him the possibility of that sort of spiritual growth.
I see people like Kirk very much as the Pharisees were seen by the Gospel writers, obsessed with rules and propping up the establishment, rather than embracing the Spirit.
While acknowledging that many on here who are now experts on the Life and Works of Charlie Kirk, I am simply someone who has followed his (snipped for the socials) interactions on campuses over the past months and years.
I have never heard of him saying he wants to stone gays and I googled it just now so would be interested in your sources. Would he have said something like that? Maybe - if it is in scripture, in which case I'm sure it would have come with context. I have never, ever heard him wish harm on anyone or any type of person. Please post the clip.
But it is surely the height of hubris for you, as a co-religionist of his, arbitrarily to decide which bits of scripture are okay and which bits are, er, beyond the pale.
Here's Kirk saying that stoning gay men is part of God's perfect law:
So you, as a co-religionist, put yourself in a position to opine on which bits of God's perfect law [sic] is perfect and which isn't.
That right?
Christianity in its broadest sense has a couple of billion adherents across the globe. It is absurd to suggest that the faith possesses one fixed position on all matters, immutable for all the two billion at all times, absurd to suggest that Christians don't or shouldn't engage in critical evaluation of sacred texts, absurd to suggest it is incapable of development and understanding, and absurd to suggest there is something called a 'perfect law' from 3000 years ago to be understood a priori.
You wouldn't understand a triviality like the rules of football in that naive manner. So it isn't true either for the complex ramifications of Christianity.
Nah you're normally more logically consistent than this although I appreciate religion fucks with peoples' logical faculty.
If God's law is perfect then there is one law. If it is "open to interpretation" then there is no God's perfect law because each interpretation accords with each human's thoughts, hopes, fears and prejudices that is doing the interpretation. So there's no point having a God's perfect law. It is wholly man made.
A number of MPs have had their offices attacked in recent months. I hope if they are caught they get the extra special harsh treatment, like the authorities stamp down hard on rioting, any attack on a politician / their offices etc, should carry similar extra penalties. It is incredibly important that they are protected even if I don't agree with them e.g. Jezza getting assaulted.
As I said, the left are on a roll of violence at the moment.
There’s a horribly plausible theory on X that says a foreign actor likely killed Kirk
Logic:
1 cui bono? No one in America, not really. This pushes the country closer to civil strife
2 the job looks extremely professional. State level lethality. A clever sniper who got clean away
Putin has made it clear he’s happy to kill people abroad and he’d love to see the USA sink into internecine violence. I expect Xi would be positive, too
A number of MPs have had their offices attacked in recent months. I hope if they are caught they get the extra special harsh treatment, like the authorities stamp down hard on rioting, any attack on a politician / their offices etc, should carry similar extra penalties. It is incredibly important that they are protected even if I don't agree with them e.g. Jezza getting assaulted.
As I said, the left are on a roll of violence at the moment.
There’s a horribly plausible theory on X that says a foreign actor likely killed Kirk
Logic:
1 cui bono? No one in America, not really. This pushes the country closer to civil strife
2 the job looks extremely professional. State level lethality. A clever sniper who got clean away
Putin has made it clear he’s happy to kill people abroad and he’d love to see the USA sink into internecine violence. I expect Xi would be positive, too
It's definitely plausible. As are the 529 other theories around who did it and why. A bit like God's perfect law. Just too many theories and interpretations.
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I hadn't heard of him either.
Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing. After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.
I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".
Whether committed religionists are nice or nasty, and in what mixture, is a question of fact in every case. There are many traps for the unwary 'committed' believer - like the sort who end up backing 'Jesus, babies, guns, whites, English speaking, autocrats, kleptocrats'.
There is however a good deal to be said for 'uncommitted religionists'. The sort, of which there were quite a lot, who thought that the best way of loving and honouring God (whichever god she was) was to live a life according to principle and moral fundamentals, and to assume all power is service and that if god made and cared for all things then in our own tiny sphere of life we we could best honour and worship god by caring for others and doing no evil, and not leaving out the unlovable and the unloved to the best of our finite abilities.
This is by the way, a perfectly possible and sensible reading of what Jesus - and I suspect quite few other religious leaders - were on about. Significantly more likely than that Jesus was really on about the merits of gun ownership and white supremacy.
Yeah but you don't really need Jesus and the whole on the third day he was risen bit to live a "good" life.
Of course, that goes without saying. I didn't compose the last 2000 years of human and religious history. We are where we are.
A fully formed religion needs a bit more to get going than 'be nice'. In particular early Christianity resolved a couple of tricky issues such as the Jewish and pagan rather gloomy expectations of the afterlife, replacing them with hope; it promoted strongly the significance of very poor and oppressed humanity - ie most of it, in the great scheme of things, something Romans were not great at. Also the religion set up the idea, still immensely strong, of a jurisdiction on the basis of humble servanthood rather than Caesar like power.
Despite the epic fails of the last 2000 years, I still like all those things, and FWIW I think each of them ultimately derive from the thoughts of Jesus himself, who was a very remarkable person.
Were they now. Catherine Nixey et al are not so sure.
Catherine Nixey views the Roman Empire as "liberal, humane, tolerant."
Starmer losing his deputy pm and US Ambassador in a week of sleaze is a Boris level crisis for him
You have had a great week, having personally taken two Labour scalps and a probability of the PM too, but Boris levels of sleaze is too far by a country mile.
The BBC have tasted blood and won't stop until Farage is in No10.
...and then they won't stop until he is out.
He is the King of our Hearts. Particularly Chris Mason's.
A number of MPs have had their offices attacked in recent months. I hope if they are caught they get the extra special harsh treatment, like the authorities stamp down hard on rioting, any attack on a politician / their offices etc, should carry similar extra penalties. It is incredibly important that they are protected even if I don't agree with them e.g. Jezza getting assaulted.
As I said, the left are on a roll of violence at the moment.
Extreme left and extreme right are on a roll of violence. It’s shocking and her office is not too far from where I live. I hope she, and her team, are well and unharmed
I personally abhor all of this. I’m sure many who support JSO/XR defacing building will oppose this and the graffiti on Rayners swanky pad and vice versa.
Unacceptable behaviour is unacceptable whoever carries it out.
I see Boris and Farage have also tweeted about Charlie Kirk.
Absolutely bizarre. I don’t recognise this terminally online, house of mirrors that British politics has turned into.
You've lived in New York for several years, as I have also lived in Ireland, and yet we're both here, online, in a primarily British politics website, discussing the resignation of the British Ambassador to the US.
I am waiting by the phone waiting to be offered the job as His Majesty’s Most Excellent Ambassador Extraordinaire & Plenipotentiary to the United States of America.
A number of MPs have had their offices attacked in recent months. I hope if they are caught they get the extra special harsh treatment, like the authorities stamp down hard on rioting, any attack on a politician / their offices etc, should carry similar extra penalties. It is incredibly important that they are protected even if I don't agree with them e.g. Jezza getting assaulted.
As I said, the left are on a roll of violence at the moment.
There’s a horribly plausible theory on X that says a foreign actor likely killed Kirk
Logic:
1 cui bono? No one in America, not really. This pushes the country closer to civil strife
2 the job looks extremely professional. State level lethality. A clever sniper who got clean away
Putin has made it clear he’s happy to kill people abroad and he’d love to see the USA sink into internecine violence. I expect Xi would be positive, too
It's not entirely implausible, though pretty unlikely.
"State level lethality" isn't really a thing with snipers in the US. There are more than enough gun nuts there for one of them to be highly competent. And the immediate law enforcement response seems to have been pretty disorganised, with the FBI director live tweeting arrests of people who turned out to have nothing to do with it.
But certainly the Russian trolls are out there exploiting the news. Medvedev is blaming Ukraine.
(China tends to favour stability rather than chaos, so Xi is even more unlikely.)
A number of MPs have had their offices attacked in recent months. I hope if they are caught they get the extra special harsh treatment, like the authorities stamp down hard on rioting, any attack on a politician / their offices etc, should carry similar extra penalties. It is incredibly important that they are protected even if I don't agree with them e.g. Jezza getting assaulted.
As I said, the left are on a roll of violence at the moment.
There’s a horribly plausible theory on X that says a foreign actor likely killed Kirk
Logic:
1 cui bono? No one in America, not really. This pushes the country closer to civil strife
2 the job looks extremely professional. State level lethality. A clever sniper who got clean away
Putin has made it clear he’s happy to kill people abroad and he’d love to see the USA sink into internecine violence. I expect Xi would be positive, too
Murdering Charlie Kirk could be the perfect trigger event to allow Trump to send armed militia into cities he dislikes and round up "radical liberals". Trump needs to impose martial law to scrap the mid terms. He benefits from this absolutely.
You cannot discount this being a false flag. Especially when MAGA immediately screams that the perp is liberal and demands vengeance. Everyone stopped talking about Epstein as well. Perfect.
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I hadn't heard of him either.
Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing. After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.
I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".
It is perfectly possible to be thoroughly nasty piece of work and a Biblical Christian. His views on stoning gays, that slavery is fine and dandy and that women should be subservient are all backed in scripture.
It doesn't justify his murder of course. However improbable, I would have preferred him to study and absorb the Sermon on the Mount, and to repent of his intolerance, welcoming the stranger, feeding the poor, visiting criminals in jail etc. The killer has denied him the possibility of that sort of spiritual growth.
I see people like Kirk very much as the Pharisees were seen by the Gospel writers, obsessed with rules and propping up the establishment, rather than embracing the Spirit.
While acknowledging that many on here who are now experts on the Life and Works of Charlie Kirk, I am simply someone who has followed his (snipped for the socials) interactions on campuses over the past months and years.
I have never heard of him saying he wants to stone gays and I googled it just now so would be interested in your sources. Would he have said something like that? Maybe - if it is in scripture, in which case I'm sure it would have come with context. I have never, ever heard him wish harm on anyone or any type of person. Please post the clip.
But it is surely the height of hubris for you, as a co-religionist of his, arbitrarily to decide which bits of scripture are okay and which bits are, er, beyond the pale.
Here's Kirk saying that stoning gay men is part of God's perfect law:
So you, as a co-religionist, put yourself in a position to opine on which bits of God's perfect law [sic] is perfect and which isn't.
That right?
Christianity in its broadest sense has a couple of billion adherents across the globe. It is absurd to suggest that the faith possesses one fixed position on all matters, immutable for all the two billion at all times, absurd to suggest that Christians don't or shouldn't engage in critical evaluation of sacred texts, absurd to suggest it is incapable of development and understanding, and absurd to suggest there is something called a 'perfect law' from 3000 years ago to be understood a priori.
You wouldn't understand a triviality like the rules of football in that naive manner. So it isn't true either for the complex ramifications of Christianity.
Nah you're normally more logically consistent than this although I appreciate religion fucks with peoples' logical faculty.
If God's law is perfect then there is one law. If it is "open to interpretation" then there is no God's perfect law because each interpretation accords with each human's thoughts, hopes, fears and prejudices that is doing the interpretation. So there's no point having a God's perfect law. It is wholly man made.
In a surprising coincidence, God's law for the last 3000 years has almost exactly matched that of the dominant cultural values of the time. Flexible chap, the big fella.
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I hadn't heard of him either.
Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing. After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.
I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".
It is perfectly possible to be thoroughly nasty piece of work and a Biblical Christian. His views on stoning gays, that slavery is fine and dandy and that women should be subservient are all backed in scripture.
It doesn't justify his murder of course. However improbable, I would have preferred him to study and absorb the Sermon on the Mount, and to repent of his intolerance, welcoming the stranger, feeding the poor, visiting criminals in jail etc. The killer has denied him the possibility of that sort of spiritual growth.
I see people like Kirk very much as the Pharisees were seen by the Gospel writers, obsessed with rules and propping up the establishment, rather than embracing the Spirit.
While acknowledging that many on here who are now experts on the Life and Works of Charlie Kirk, I am simply someone who has followed his (snipped for the socials) interactions on campuses over the past months and years.
I have never heard of him saying he wants to stone gays and I googled it just now so would be interested in your sources. Would he have said something like that? Maybe - if it is in scripture, in which case I'm sure it would have come with context. I have never, ever heard him wish harm on anyone or any type of person. Please post the clip.
But it is surely the height of hubris for you, as a co-religionist of his, arbitrarily to decide which bits of scripture are okay and which bits are, er, beyond the pale.
Here's Kirk saying that stoning gay men is part of God's perfect law:
So you, as a co-religionist, put yourself in a position to opine on which bits of God's perfect law [sic] is perfect and which isn't.
That right?
Christianity in its broadest sense has a couple of billion adherents across the globe. It is absurd to suggest that the faith possesses one fixed position on all matters, immutable for all the two billion at all times, absurd to suggest that Christians don't or shouldn't engage in critical evaluation of sacred texts, absurd to suggest it is incapable of development and understanding, and absurd to suggest there is something called a 'perfect law' from 3000 years ago to be understood a priori.
You wouldn't understand a triviality like the rules of football in that naive manner. So it isn't true either for the complex ramifications of Christianity.
Nah you're normally more logically consistent than this although I appreciate religion fucks with peoples' logical faculty.
If God's law is perfect then there is one law. If it is "open to interpretation" then there is no God's perfect law because each interpretation accords with each human's thoughts, hopes, fears and prejudices that is doing the interpretation. So there's no point having a God's perfect law. It is wholly man made.
Religion and reality is slightly more complex than this. Let us assume for this discussion there is a thing in god as she is in herself to be called 'God's perfect law'. (Though personally I am agnostic about it).
The problem you immediately hit is about the human capacity for knowledge and certainty, together with the effects of the passage of time. Ie, the problems of change and epistemology.
'The perfect law of God' and 'for me to know what it is' are utterly different concepts. One belongs to the unknowable world of divine nature, the other belongs to the contingent world we know so well.
God's eternal 'perfect law' may allow for a thing at Time A to be god's law, but by time B to be not god's law.
The conversion of any attribute of God into human certain knowledge is by no means an obvious or achievable process, despite the enthusiastic belief of many humans that it can be done.
I am waiting by the phone waiting to be offered the job as His Majesty’s Most Excellent Ambassador Extraordinaire & Plenipotentiary to the United States of America.
His Majesty's Government can't afford the shipping costs for you shoe collection to be transported to DC.
I see Boris and Farage have also tweeted about Charlie Kirk.
Absolutely bizarre. I don’t recognise this terminally online, house of mirrors that British politics has turned into.
You've lived in New York for several years, as I have also lived in Ireland, and yet we're both here, online, in a primarily British politics website, discussing the resignation of the British Ambassador to the US.
You are part of that world, as am I.
It’s quite bizarre to see a long term regular on PB - arguably THE online forum for political obsessives - complaining about other commenters being politically obsessed
Also the whole “obsession with America” thing goes two ways. Yes we are probably over interested in their affairs, but these days Americans of a certain type are often weirdly well informed about Britain. They know who Farage is, they know about Tommy Robinson, they follow our debates on asylum and free speech etc
Essentially Anglophone politics is blending into one big spicy stew, and social media is the pot and the stove
A number of MPs have had their offices attacked in recent months. I hope if they are caught they get the extra special harsh treatment, like the authorities stamp down hard on rioting, any attack on a politician / their offices etc, should carry similar extra penalties. It is incredibly important that they are protected even if I don't agree with them e.g. Jezza getting assaulted.
As I said, the left are on a roll of violence at the moment.
There’s a horribly plausible theory on X that says a foreign actor likely killed Kirk
Logic:
1 cui bono? No one in America, not really. This pushes the country closer to civil strife
2 the job looks extremely professional. State level lethality. A clever sniper who got clean away
Putin has made it clear he’s happy to kill people abroad and he’d love to see the USA sink into internecine violence. I expect Xi would be positive, too
Murdering Charlie Kirk could be the perfect trigger event to allow Trump to send armed militia into cities he dislikes and round up "radical liberals". Trump needs to impose martial law to scrap the mid terms. He benefits from this absolutely.
You cannot discount this being a false flag. Especially when MAGA immediately screams that the perp is liberal and demands vengeance. Everyone stopped talking about Epstein as well. Perfect.
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I hadn't heard of him either.
Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing. After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.
I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".
It is perfectly possible to be thoroughly nasty piece of work and a Biblical Christian. His views on stoning gays, that slavery is fine and dandy and that women should be subservient are all backed in scripture.
It doesn't justify his murder of course. However improbable, I would have preferred him to study and absorb the Sermon on the Mount, and to repent of his intolerance, welcoming the stranger, feeding the poor, visiting criminals in jail etc. The killer has denied him the possibility of that sort of spiritual growth.
I see people like Kirk very much as the Pharisees were seen by the Gospel writers, obsessed with rules and propping up the establishment, rather than embracing the Spirit.
While acknowledging that many on here who are now experts on the Life and Works of Charlie Kirk, I am simply someone who has followed his (snipped for the socials) interactions on campuses over the past months and years.
I have never heard of him saying he wants to stone gays and I googled it just now so would be interested in your sources. Would he have said something like that? Maybe - if it is in scripture, in which case I'm sure it would have come with context. I have never, ever heard him wish harm on anyone or any type of person. Please post the clip.
But it is surely the height of hubris for you, as a co-religionist of his, arbitrarily to decide which bits of scripture are okay and which bits are, er, beyond the pale.
Here's Kirk saying that stoning gay men is part of God's perfect law:
So you, as a co-religionist, put yourself in a position to opine on which bits of God's perfect law [sic] is perfect and which isn't.
That right?
Christianity in its broadest sense has a couple of billion adherents across the globe. It is absurd to suggest that the faith possesses one fixed position on all matters, immutable for all the two billion at all times, absurd to suggest that Christians don't or shouldn't engage in critical evaluation of sacred texts, absurd to suggest it is incapable of development and understanding, and absurd to suggest there is something called a 'perfect law' from 3000 years ago to be understood a priori.
You wouldn't understand a triviality like the rules of football in that naive manner. So it isn't true either for the complex ramifications of Christianity.
Nah you're normally more logically consistent than this although I appreciate religion fucks with peoples' logical faculty.
If God's law is perfect then there is one law. If it is "open to interpretation" then there is no God's perfect law because each interpretation accords with each human's thoughts, hopes, fears and prejudices that is doing the interpretation. So there's no point having a God's perfect law. It is wholly man made.
God can be perfect, but the humans who put his teachings into writing are flawed. Also, he seems to have changed his mind over time.
The translation issues with the Bible, for example, are extensive, and that's leaving aside many issues to do with selecting what should be part of it. How much of the blame for that would you lay at God's feet and how much at the humans who have tried to propagate his word?
I'm not remotely religious, but I don't find your argument particularly convincing.
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I hadn't heard of him either.
Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing. After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.
I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".
Whether committed religionists are nice or nasty, and in what mixture, is a question of fact in every case. There are many traps for the unwary 'committed' believer - like the sort who end up backing 'Jesus, babies, guns, whites, English speaking, autocrats, kleptocrats'.
There is however a good deal to be said for 'uncommitted religionists'. The sort, of which there were quite a lot, who thought that the best way of loving and honouring God (whichever god she was) was to live a life according to principle and moral fundamentals, and to assume all power is service and that if god made and cared for all things then in our own tiny sphere of life we we could best honour and worship god by caring for others and doing no evil, and not leaving out the unlovable and the unloved to the best of our finite abilities.
This is by the way, a perfectly possible and sensible reading of what Jesus - and I suspect quite few other religious leaders - were on about. Significantly more likely than that Jesus was really on about the merits of gun ownership and white supremacy.
Yeah but you don't really need Jesus and the whole on the third day he was risen bit to live a "good" life.
Of course, that goes without saying. I didn't compose the last 2000 years of human and religious history. We are where we are.
A fully formed religion needs a bit more to get going than 'be nice'. In particular early Christianity resolved a couple of tricky issues such as the Jewish and pagan rather gloomy expectations of the afterlife, replacing them with hope; it promoted strongly the significance of very poor and oppressed humanity - ie most of it, in the great scheme of things, something Romans were not great at. Also the religion set up the idea, still immensely strong, of a jurisdiction on the basis of humble servanthood rather than Caesar like power.
Despite the epic fails of the last 2000 years, I still like all those things, and FWIW I think each of them ultimately derive from the thoughts of Jesus himself, who was a very remarkable person.
Were they now. Catherine Nixey et al are not so sure.
Catherine Nixey views the Roman Empire as "liberal, humane, tolerant."
It's a view, I suppose.
It's a splendid view, old fashioned and redolent of Gibbon, and reeking of Oxford as the home of lost causes, and entirely false.
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I hadn't heard of him either.
Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing. After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.
I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".
It is perfectly possible to be thoroughly nasty piece of work and a Biblical Christian. His views on stoning gays, that slavery is fine and dandy and that women should be subservient are all backed in scripture.
It doesn't justify his murder of course. However improbable, I would have preferred him to study and absorb the Sermon on the Mount, and to repent of his intolerance, welcoming the stranger, feeding the poor, visiting criminals in jail etc. The killer has denied him the possibility of that sort of spiritual growth.
I see people like Kirk very much as the Pharisees were seen by the Gospel writers, obsessed with rules and propping up the establishment, rather than embracing the Spirit.
While acknowledging that many on here who are now experts on the Life and Works of Charlie Kirk, I am simply someone who has followed his (snipped for the socials) interactions on campuses over the past months and years.
I have never heard of him saying he wants to stone gays and I googled it just now so would be interested in your sources. Would he have said something like that? Maybe - if it is in scripture, in which case I'm sure it would have come with context. I have never, ever heard him wish harm on anyone or any type of person. Please post the clip.
But it is surely the height of hubris for you, as a co-religionist of his, arbitrarily to decide which bits of scripture are okay and which bits are, er, beyond the pale.
Here's Kirk saying that stoning gay men is part of God's perfect law:
So you, as a co-religionist, put yourself in a position to opine on which bits of God's perfect law [sic] is perfect and which isn't.
That right?
Christianity in its broadest sense has a couple of billion adherents across the globe. It is absurd to suggest that the faith possesses one fixed position on all matters, immutable for all the two billion at all times, absurd to suggest that Christians don't or shouldn't engage in critical evaluation of sacred texts, absurd to suggest it is incapable of development and understanding, and absurd to suggest there is something called a 'perfect law' from 3000 years ago to be understood a priori.
You wouldn't understand a triviality like the rules of football in that naive manner. So it isn't true either for the complex ramifications of Christianity.
Nah you're normally more logically consistent than this although I appreciate religion fucks with peoples' logical faculty.
If God's law is perfect then there is one law. If it is "open to interpretation" then there is no God's perfect law because each interpretation accords with each human's thoughts, hopes, fears and prejudices that is doing the interpretation. So there's no point having a God's perfect law. It is wholly man made.
Yes, but most Christians are not restricted purely to the text and even then translations differ, and different versions of the Bible have different books in them.
As well as the Bible itself (much of which is meant to be allegory rather than literal), there is a vast literature from later authors, church traditions, litergy and common practice. Most important of all is the inward experience of the Holy Spirit, as religion is not about textual analysis for the vast majority of adherents. Of course what is considered relevant varies with personal situation and experience. Christianity has never been one unchanging doctrine.
Interpreting the Bible purely by textual analysis and nothing else is rather like studying a painting by chemical analysis of paint pigments. It tells you something, but is very far from understanding the full picture.
Starmer takes too long to make a decision once again.
I'm not sure that's strictly true, or more accurately yes it is true these days but it shouldn't be. Bear in mind this scandal is less than a week old. In pre-world-wide-web (say 1995) or pre-smartphone (say 2015) days he could have taken longer and we would have been less concerned. But now it is the time of instant reaction which, I feel, places too much burden on the PM. There's going to have to be a "hand of the King" role sooner or later so the PM isn't distracted by stuff like this.
A number of MPs have had their offices attacked in recent months. I hope if they are caught they get the extra special harsh treatment, like the authorities stamp down hard on rioting, any attack on a politician / their offices etc, should carry similar extra penalties. It is incredibly important that they are protected even if I don't agree with them e.g. Jezza getting assaulted.
As I said, the left are on a roll of violence at the moment.
There’s a horribly plausible theory on X that says a foreign actor likely killed Kirk
Logic:
1 cui bono? No one in America, not really. This pushes the country closer to civil strife
2 the job looks extremely professional. State level lethality. A clever sniper who got clean away
Putin has made it clear he’s happy to kill people abroad and he’d love to see the USA sink into internecine violence. I expect Xi would be positive, too
Putin has his hands full assassinating people who have directly crossed him. Boris Johnson would be much higher on a Russian hit list than Kirk.
I think there are enough unhinged individuals in America to be responsible, and one of them has to be a bit more professional than the normal ones.
I see Boris and Farage have also tweeted about Charlie Kirk.
Absolutely bizarre. I don’t recognise this terminally online, house of mirrors that British politics has turned into.
You've lived in New York for several years, as I have also lived in Ireland, and yet we're both here, online, in a primarily British politics website, discussing the resignation of the British Ambassador to the US.
You are part of that world, as am I.
It’s quite bizarre to see a long term regular on PB - arguably THE online forum for political obsessives - complaining about other commenters being politically obsessed
Also the whole “obsession with America” thing goes two ways. Yes we are probably over interested in their affairs, but these days Americans of a certain type are often weirdly well informed about Britain. They know who Farage is, they know about Tommy Robinson, they follow our debates on asylum and free speech etc
Essentially Anglophone politics is blending into one big spicy stew, and social media is the pot and the stove
Agree with your last points. Wholly regrettable. American politics is exponentially more polarized, corrupt, and batshit than Britain’s. Gresham’s law applies.
I wonder if MAGA will take a moment to contemplate whether firing competent FBI agents and replacing them with podcast hosts was a good idea as the manhunt continues...
Which is the first sensible thing I've seen this week.
I’m sure there’s a lot more of this going on that we don’t know about, but Ukraine are now the world’s experts in drone warfare and the mass production of cheap weapons.
Plenty of opportunity for our industry and theirs to learn a lot from each other, both now and after the war.
I wonder if MAGA will take a moment to contemplate whether firing competent FBI agents and replacing them with podcast hosts was a good idea as the manhunt continues...
Starmer takes too long to make a decision once again.
I'm not sure that's strictly true, or more accurately yes it is true these days but it shouldn't be. Bear in mind this scandal is less than a week old. In pre-world-wide-web (say 1995) or pre-smartphone (say 2015) days he could have taken longer and we would have been less concerned. But now it is the time of instant reaction which, I feel, places too much burden on the PM. There's going to have to be a "hand of the King" role sooner or later so the PM isn't distracted by stuff like this.
Didn't Alistair Campbell use to say that if a story was still running by the second set of Sunday papers then it needed a resignation to kill it?
And back then we thought everything was frenetic with 24 hour news.
I see Boris and Farage have also tweeted about Charlie Kirk.
Absolutely bizarre. I don’t recognise this terminally online, house of mirrors that British politics has turned into.
You've lived in New York for several years, as I have also lived in Ireland, and yet we're both here, online, in a primarily British politics website, discussing the resignation of the British Ambassador to the US.
You are part of that world, as am I.
It’s quite bizarre to see a long term regular on PB - arguably THE online forum for political obsessives - complaining about other commenters being politically obsessed
Its comical.
I’ve been accused of being obsessed with the Lib Dem’s by people who endlessly either post about Reform or Trump.
Anyone here accusing anyone of being obsessed. Physician heal thyself.
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I hadn't heard of him either.
Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing. After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.
I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".
The guy said that empathy was a made up term, he said Jews controlled the media and were pushing hatred of white people, he said black people only got their jobs because of affirmative action, he said school shootings were worth it to protect gun rights... yeah sounds like a lovely man.
For someone who hadn't heard of him until last night you happen to have a lot of his wit and wisdom to hand.
A quick google "Charlie Kirk....Jews" shows that many in that community, including notably Benjamin Netanyahu, are very much mourning his killing.
I have only ever heard him talk about black people in the context of proportional numbers and the major cause of death of black youths (he would say other black youths).
The 2nd Amendment yes he did say that, not particularly nasty although I don't happen to agree with it.
He was a big friend of Israel because, like a lot of US evangelicas, he saw the return of the Jews to Israel as fulfilling biblical prophecy and hence bringing forward the end times scenario sketched out in the Book of Revelation (at which point Jews in common with other non Christians will come to a sticky end). There is no inconsistency in this worldview with also thinking Jews in the US are a sinister cabal seeking to replace white Christians with minorities.
Yes I am aware of the support for Israel from evangelical Christians. Could you please post the source clip where he said that about the media. I'm interested in hearing it directly.
This piece I think has links to the comments, apparently made on his show/podcast.
"APPARENTLY"
LOL
In other words you have never heard him say any of those things. FFS it helps if you don't make stuff up.
Wikipedia: Kirk was highly supportive of Israel. Amidst the Gaza war, Israeli politicians and political activists including Itamar Ben-Gvir, Eli Cohen, Danny Danon, Benny Gantz, Isaac Herzog, Yoav Kisch, Benjamin Netanyahu, Yair Netanyahu, Amir Ohana, Miri Regev and Miki Zohar mourned Kirk's death, with many describing him as a "friend" of Israel and a few linking his death to anti-Zionist activism. *
Iran–Israel War Main article: Iran-Israel War In June 2025, Kirk opposed the involvement of the United States in the Iran–Israel War.
* In the usual manner of X, there are a significant number of posts (probably bots) blaming "the Jews" for his murder.
I mean he was totally out there in that (evangelical) christian ultra-conservative bonkers way but I didn't get any sense that he was malevolent towards specific groups, beyond repeating certain (who knows, perhaps spurious) statistics such as the number of Jews in/running Hollywood (can you run Hollywood these days with all the streamers) and in particular black-on-black violence and death statistics.
It's the old scorpion and frog tale.
I don't think he was nasty.
I don't see statements of Kirk as being hostile to "Jews", and I don't evidence of him saying that "Jews controlling the media" (I think OLB was summarising too much).
But in his culture war politics he was quite blatant; for example his was vitriolic about wealthy "secular Jews" donating to Universities and charities, which hostility I would suggest was informed by his literalist theological views on "Israel" * (from his religion), applied to his politics.
Here he is talking about it, trying to set 'Evangelical Christians' like him up as the victims, and liberals up as the Jew Haters:
Weeks later on “The Charlie Kirk Show,” he also said that Jewish people control “not just the colleges; it’s the nonprofits, it’s the movies, it’s Hollywood, it’s all of it.”
That's what I am on about when I talk about NatCons inserting their theology into their politics.
* I would analyse that as some USA Evangelicals trying to treat their bibles as a literalist history book, which gives us young earth (6000 years) creationism, anti-evolution and other things including taking prophetic books (eg Revelation) and thinking it is coming true now so they must defend Israel etc. The approach comes from inserting a scientific-type reductionist worldview into their religion and imposing it on the Bible.
I see Boris and Farage have also tweeted about Charlie Kirk.
Absolutely bizarre. I don’t recognise this terminally online, house of mirrors that British politics has turned into.
You've lived in New York for several years, as I have also lived in Ireland, and yet we're both here, online, in a primarily British politics website, discussing the resignation of the British Ambassador to the US.
You are part of that world, as am I.
It’s quite bizarre to see a long term regular on PB - arguably THE online forum for political obsessives - complaining about other commenters being politically obsessed
Also the whole “obsession with America” thing goes two ways. Yes we are probably over interested in their affairs, but these days Americans of a certain type are often weirdly well informed about Britain. They know who Farage is, they know about Tommy Robinson, they follow our debates on asylum and free speech etc
Essentially Anglophone politics is blending into one big spicy stew, and social media is the pot and the stove
Agree with your last points. Wholly regrettable. American politics is exponentially more polarized, corrupt, and batshit than Britain’s. Gresham’s law applies.
Fair enough. And yes to American polarisation. Look at THIS. America is in a terrible place
“TMZ announcing the death of Charlie Kirk.
You can hear the staff cheering as they receive the news that Kirk has died.”
Which is the first sensible thing I've seen this week.
This is good, but sad.
* Several hundred drones are in battle on any given day in Ukraine and AI tells me[1] this will/has exceeded 1,000 per day. "Thousands per month" won't be enough. * Ukraine is slowly bleeding to death and needs a gamechanger. It needs something that will kill factories/storage depots, not just incoming drones/missiles. Interceptor drones won't be enough.
A number of MPs have had their offices attacked in recent months. I hope if they are caught they get the extra special harsh treatment, like the authorities stamp down hard on rioting, any attack on a politician / their offices etc, should carry similar extra penalties. It is incredibly important that they are protected even if I don't agree with them e.g. Jezza getting assaulted.
As I said, the left are on a roll of violence at the moment.
There’s a horribly plausible theory on X that says a foreign actor likely killed Kirk
Logic:
1 cui bono? No one in America, not really. This pushes the country closer to civil strife
2 the job looks extremely professional. State level lethality. A clever sniper who got clean away
Putin has made it clear he’s happy to kill people abroad and he’d love to see the USA sink into internecine violence. I expect Xi would be positive, too
It's definitely plausible. As are the 529 other theories around who did it and why. A bit like God's perfect law. Just too many theories and interpretations.
Kirk was pushing for the release of the Epstein files even as the Republicans in Congress voted to block it. That widens the suspect list considerably.
Starmer takes too long to make a decision once again.
I'm not sure that's strictly true, or more accurately yes it is true these days but it shouldn't be. Bear in mind this scandal is less than a week old. In pre-world-wide-web (say 1995) or pre-smartphone (say 2015) days he could have taken longer and we would have been less concerned. But now it is the time of instant reaction which, I feel, places too much burden on the PM. There's going to have to be a "hand of the King" role sooner or later so the PM isn't distracted by stuff like this.
In this particular instance I think the bigger point is the judgement in making the Mandelson appointment in the first place.
I think this was one of those situations of institutional blindness - Mandelson has attained a semi-mythical status among the UK political class and political journalists as a master of his art (despite managing to have a rather poor track record of being able to hold a government job down). I am sure that on paper Starmer wanted to bask in the reflected glow, and get the same boost as Brown received when he brought Mandelson back to government.
But Mandelson has always been a figure with skeletons. And we live in an era where public figures are increasingly unable to hide from their actions and associations, given the spread of news and information. As such a figure and knowing he had even so much of a tangential friendship with Epstein - and let us not forget that it was friendship with Epstein that brought down Prince Andrew only a few short years ago - it seems incredibly curious on reflection that anyone deemed him a good fit for a high profile role.
A number of MPs have had their offices attacked in recent months. I hope if they are caught they get the extra special harsh treatment, like the authorities stamp down hard on rioting, any attack on a politician / their offices etc, should carry similar extra penalties. It is incredibly important that they are protected even if I don't agree with them e.g. Jezza getting assaulted.
As I said, the left are on a roll of violence at the moment.
There’s a horribly plausible theory on X that says a foreign actor likely killed Kirk
Logic:
1 cui bono? No one in America, not really. This pushes the country closer to civil strife
2 the job looks extremely professional. State level lethality. A clever sniper who got clean away
Putin has made it clear he’s happy to kill people abroad and he’d love to see the USA sink into internecine violence. I expect Xi would be positive, too
It's definitely plausible. As are the 529 other theories around who did it and why. A bit like God's perfect law. Just too many theories and interpretations.
Kirk was pushing for the release of the Epstein files even as the Republicans in Congress voted to block it. That widens the suspect list considerably.
Though just last week he was claiming Tumps entry in the Birthday book was forged, so hardly a neutral interpreter.
Chris Mason (and Sarah Montague) going boots on for Starmer on R4WATO.
The BBC aren't giving this up until Starmer is toast. Mason suggesting to a sneering Montague that this alongside Rayner might be terminal. Also saying that this sacking will really annoy Trump.
I see Boris and Farage have also tweeted about Charlie Kirk.
Absolutely bizarre. I don’t recognise this terminally online, house of mirrors that British politics has turned into.
You've lived in New York for several years, as I have also lived in Ireland, and yet we're both here, online, in a primarily British politics website, discussing the resignation of the British Ambassador to the US.
You are part of that world, as am I.
It’s quite bizarre to see a long term regular on PB - arguably THE online forum for political obsessives - complaining about other commenters being politically obsessed
Its comical.
I’ve been accused of being obsessed with the Lib Dem’s by people who endlessly either post about Reform or Trump.
Anyone here accusing anyone of being obsessed. Physician heal thyself.
Yeah let’s face it we’re ALL obsessive politics nerds. That’s what we like and that’s why we’re here
I see Boris and Farage have also tweeted about Charlie Kirk.
Absolutely bizarre. I don’t recognise this terminally online, house of mirrors that British politics has turned into.
You've lived in New York for several years, as I have also lived in Ireland, and yet we're both here, online, in a primarily British politics website, discussing the resignation of the British Ambassador to the US.
You are part of that world, as am I.
It’s quite bizarre to see a long term regular on PB - arguably THE online forum for political obsessives - complaining about other commenters being politically obsessed
Also the whole “obsession with America” thing goes two ways. Yes we are probably over interested in their affairs, but these days Americans of a certain type are often weirdly well informed about Britain. They know who Farage is, they know about Tommy Robinson, they follow our debates on asylum and free speech etc
Essentially Anglophone politics is blending into one big spicy stew, and social media is the pot and the stove
Agree with your last points. Wholly regrettable. American politics is exponentially more polarized, corrupt, and batshit than Britain’s. Gresham’s law applies.
Fair enough. And yes to American polarisation. Look at THIS. America is in a terrible place
“TMZ announcing the death of Charlie Kirk.
You can hear the staff cheering as they receive the news that Kirk has died.”
It's a race to the bottom - look at Trump Jr's posts about the Pelosi attempted murder. I think parts of the American left have given up on the moral high ground and are now giving as good as they get. Difficult to blame them when you've got constant school shootings and Democrat politicians getting assassinated.
Look at the Luigi case too - they've run out of patience.
A number of MPs have had their offices attacked in recent months. I hope if they are caught they get the extra special harsh treatment, like the authorities stamp down hard on rioting, any attack on a politician / their offices etc, should carry similar extra penalties. It is incredibly important that they are protected even if I don't agree with them e.g. Jezza getting assaulted.
As I said, the left are on a roll of violence at the moment.
There’s a horribly plausible theory on X that says a foreign actor likely killed Kirk
Logic:
1 cui bono? No one in America, not really. This pushes the country closer to civil strife
2 the job looks extremely professional. State level lethality. A clever sniper who got clean away
Putin has made it clear he’s happy to kill people abroad and he’d love to see the USA sink into internecine violence. I expect Xi would be positive, too
Right now it’s clear that whoever pulled the trigger knew what they were doing. They took a single shot with a rifle and quickly cleared off afterwards, before anyone knew what had happened. There’s a lot of Americans with those skills, unless and until they find him it’s unlikely we’ll know the motive.
Remember that he isn’t a politician, there weren’t Secret Service everywhere and only half a dozen local police in attendance, mostly for crowd control. This was a guy famous for setting up a stand in the middle of a university and asking strangers to step up to the mic and debate him, which is exactly what he was doing yesterday. He was a relatively moderate conservative youth movement leader, who had been doing the same thing for the past decade, willing to discuss and debate with anyone on any subject.
Yes, it does push the country closer to civil strife, there’s plenty of people online who think his death is a positive, which is obviously a very unhealthy attitude.
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I hadn't heard of him either.
Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing. After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.
I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".
Whether committed religionists are nice or nasty, and in what mixture, is a question of fact in every case. There are many traps for the unwary 'committed' believer - like the sort who end up backing 'Jesus, babies, guns, whites, English speaking, autocrats, kleptocrats'.
There is however a good deal to be said for 'uncommitted religionists'. The sort, of which there were quite a lot, who thought that the best way of loving and honouring God (whichever god she was) was to live a life according to principle and moral fundamentals, and to assume all power is service and that if god made and cared for all things then in our own tiny sphere of life we we could best honour and worship god by caring for others and doing no evil, and not leaving out the unlovable and the unloved to the best of our finite abilities.
This is by the way, a perfectly possible and sensible reading of what Jesus - and I suspect quite few other religious leaders - were on about. Significantly more likely than that Jesus was really on about the merits of gun ownership and white supremacy.
Yeah but you don't really need Jesus and the whole on the third day he was risen bit to live a "good" life.
Of course, that goes without saying. I didn't compose the last 2000 years of human and religious history. We are where we are.
A fully formed religion needs a bit more to get going than 'be nice'. In particular early Christianity resolved a couple of tricky issues such as the Jewish and pagan rather gloomy expectations of the afterlife, replacing them with hope; it promoted strongly the significance of very poor and oppressed humanity - ie most of it, in the great scheme of things, something Romans were not great at. Also the religion set up the idea, still immensely strong, of a jurisdiction on the basis of humble servanthood rather than Caesar like power.
Despite the epic fails of the last 2000 years, I still like all those things, and FWIW I think each of them ultimately derive from the thoughts of Jesus himself, who was a very remarkable person.
Were they now. Catherine Nixey et al are not so sure.
Catherine Nixey views the Roman Empire as "liberal, humane, tolerant."
It's a view, I suppose.
It's a splendid view, old fashioned and redolent of Gibbon, and reeking of Oxford as the home of lost causes, and entirely false.
Gibbon is a brilliant writer, often hilariously funny, but his view, that the best time to have been alive was the Second Century, would have been absurd in the late thirteenth century, let alone the late eighteenth century. He saw elite pagans as being like him, religious sceptics. They were anything but. The vast majority were entirely sincere, in their religious beliefs.
I see Boris and Farage have also tweeted about Charlie Kirk.
Absolutely bizarre. I don’t recognise this terminally online, house of mirrors that British politics has turned into.
You've lived in New York for several years, as I have also lived in Ireland, and yet we're both here, online, in a primarily British politics website, discussing the resignation of the British Ambassador to the US.
You are part of that world, as am I.
It’s quite bizarre to see a long term regular on PB - arguably THE online forum for political obsessives - complaining about other commenters being politically obsessed
Also the whole “obsession with America” thing goes two ways. Yes we are probably over interested in their affairs, but these days Americans of a certain type are often weirdly well informed about Britain. They know who Farage is, they know about Tommy Robinson, they follow our debates on asylum and free speech etc
Essentially Anglophone politics is blending into one big spicy stew, and social media is the pot and the stove
Agree with your last points. Wholly regrettable. American politics is exponentially more polarized, corrupt, and batshit than Britain’s. Gresham’s law applies.
Fair enough. And yes to American polarisation. Look at THIS. America is in a terrible place
“TMZ announcing the death of Charlie Kirk.
You can hear the staff cheering as they receive the news that Kirk has died.”
It's a race to the bottom - look at Trump Jr's posts about the Pelosi attempted murder. I think parts of the American left have given up on the moral high ground and are now giving as good as they get. Difficult to blame them when you've got constant school shootings and Democrat politicians getting assassinated.
Oh yes absolutely. I don’t buy the idea it’s just the left. Trump is a fucking maniac and he’s in office. I do, however, think the American left is crazier right now, and a greater threat to western civilisation and freedoms, than the right. You will likely disagree. Without wanting to shoot me. Which is good
A part of me just wants them to get on with it now. Have the civil war. The overture is dragging on
I see Boris and Farage have also tweeted about Charlie Kirk.
Absolutely bizarre. I don’t recognise this terminally online, house of mirrors that British politics has turned into.
You've lived in New York for several years, as I have also lived in Ireland, and yet we're both here, online, in a primarily British politics website, discussing the resignation of the British Ambassador to the US.
You are part of that world, as am I.
It’s quite bizarre to see a long term regular on PB - arguably THE online forum for political obsessives - complaining about other commenters being politically obsessed
Its comical.
I’ve been accused of being obsessed with the Lib Dem’s by people who endlessly either post about Reform or Trump.
Anyone here accusing anyone of being obsessed. Physician heal thyself.
Well I am one of those who accuses you of being obsessed with the LDs (as you clearly appear to be), yet if you look at my posts I don't endlessly post about Reform or Trump, or at least no more than any other topics.
Having said that I do enjoy (most of) your posts and I'm not adverse to posts knocking the LDs and/or Davey.
A number of MPs have had their offices attacked in recent months. I hope if they are caught they get the extra special harsh treatment, like the authorities stamp down hard on rioting, any attack on a politician / their offices etc, should carry similar extra penalties. It is incredibly important that they are protected even if I don't agree with them e.g. Jezza getting assaulted.
As I said, the left are on a roll of violence at the moment.
There’s a horribly plausible theory on X that says a foreign actor likely killed Kirk
Logic:
1 cui bono? No one in America, not really. This pushes the country closer to civil strife
2 the job looks extremely professional. State level lethality. A clever sniper who got clean away
Putin has made it clear he’s happy to kill people abroad and he’d love to see the USA sink into internecine violence. I expect Xi would be positive, too
Right now it’s clear that whoever pulled the trigger knew what they were doing. They took a single shot with a rifle and quickly cleared off afterwards, before anyone knew what had happened. There’s a lot of Americans with those skills, unless and until they find him it’s unlikely we’ll know the motive.
Remember that he isn’t a politician, there weren’t Secret Service everywhere and only half a dozen local police in attendance, mostly for crowd control. This was a guy famous for setting up a stand in the middle of a university and asking strangers to step up to the mic and debate him, which is exactly what he was doing yesterday. He was a relatively moderate conservative youth movement leader, who had been doing the same thing for the past decade, willing to discuss and debate with anyone on any subject.
Yes, it does push the country closer to civil strife, there’s plenty of people online who think his death is a positive, which is obviously a very unhealthy attitude.
Russia looks like a prime suspect to me. But yes there are plenty others, of course
I see Boris and Farage have also tweeted about Charlie Kirk.
Absolutely bizarre. I don’t recognise this terminally online, house of mirrors that British politics has turned into.
You've lived in New York for several years, as I have also lived in Ireland, and yet we're both here, online, in a primarily British politics website, discussing the resignation of the British Ambassador to the US.
You are part of that world, as am I.
It’s quite bizarre to see a long term regular on PB - arguably THE online forum for political obsessives - complaining about other commenters being politically obsessed
Its comical.
I’ve been accused of being obsessed with the Lib Dem’s by people who endlessly either post about Reform or Trump.
Anyone here accusing anyone of being obsessed. Physician heal thyself.
Yeah let’s face it we’re ALL obsessive politics nerds. That’s what we like and that’s why we’re here
I'm defence of Gardenwalker, he wasn't going for PBers (who you'd expect to be giganerds) but our politicians. I think he's partly right - one thing Badenoch has got better at is not parroting lines from the American right she saw on TikTok.
My posts upthread were not about PB obsessives, especially, but rather about the PM of the UK thinking that Charlie Kirk’s murder is materially important enough to be posted about.
A number of MPs have had their offices attacked in recent months. I hope if they are caught they get the extra special harsh treatment, like the authorities stamp down hard on rioting, any attack on a politician / their offices etc, should carry similar extra penalties. It is incredibly important that they are protected even if I don't agree with them e.g. Jezza getting assaulted.
As I said, the left are on a roll of violence at the moment.
There’s a horribly plausible theory on X that says a foreign actor likely killed Kirk
Logic:
1 cui bono? No one in America, not really. This pushes the country closer to civil strife
2 the job looks extremely professional. State level lethality. A clever sniper who got clean away
Putin has made it clear he’s happy to kill people abroad and he’d love to see the USA sink into internecine violence. I expect Xi would be positive, too
Murdering Charlie Kirk could be the perfect trigger event to allow Trump to send armed militia into cities he dislikes and round up "radical liberals". Trump needs to impose martial law to scrap the mid terms. He benefits from this absolutely.
You cannot discount this being a false flag. Especially when MAGA immediately screams that the perp is liberal and demands vengeance. Everyone stopped talking about Epstein as well. Perfect.
Jeremy Hunt on WATO very circumspect and not at all partisan. He doesn't think it affects the visit next week, he was very impressive. Montague, if she doesn't get her expected answer loads the next question to get the answer she wants.
I see Boris and Farage have also tweeted about Charlie Kirk.
Absolutely bizarre. I don’t recognise this terminally online, house of mirrors that British politics has turned into.
You've lived in New York for several years, as I have also lived in Ireland, and yet we're both here, online, in a primarily British politics website, discussing the resignation of the British Ambassador to the US.
You are part of that world, as am I.
It’s quite bizarre to see a long term regular on PB - arguably THE online forum for political obsessives - complaining about other commenters being politically obsessed
Also the whole “obsession with America” thing goes two ways. Yes we are probably over interested in their affairs, but these days Americans of a certain type are often weirdly well informed about Britain. They know who Farage is, they know about Tommy Robinson, they follow our debates on asylum and free speech etc
Essentially Anglophone politics is blending into one big spicy stew, and social media is the pot and the stove
Agree with your last points. Wholly regrettable. American politics is exponentially more polarized, corrupt, and batshit than Britain’s. Gresham’s law applies.
Fair enough. And yes to American polarisation. Look at THIS. America is in a terrible place
“TMZ announcing the death of Charlie Kirk.
You can hear the staff cheering as they receive the news that Kirk has died.”
It's a race to the bottom - look at Trump Jr's posts about the Pelosi attempted murder. I think parts of the American left have given up on the moral high ground and are now giving as good as they get. Difficult to blame them when you've got constant school shootings and Democrat politicians getting assassinated.
Oh yes absolutely. I don’t buy the idea it’s just the left. Trump is a fucking maniac and he’s in office. I do, however, think the American left is crazier right now, and a greater threat to western civilisation and freedoms, than the right. You will likely disagree. Without wanting to shoot me. Which is good
A part of me just wants them to get on with it now. Have the civil war. The overture is dragging on
I do disagree - January 6th is incontrovertible evidence.
A number of MPs have had their offices attacked in recent months. I hope if they are caught they get the extra special harsh treatment, like the authorities stamp down hard on rioting, any attack on a politician / their offices etc, should carry similar extra penalties. It is incredibly important that they are protected even if I don't agree with them e.g. Jezza getting assaulted.
As I said, the left are on a roll of violence at the moment.
There’s a horribly plausible theory on X that says a foreign actor likely killed Kirk
Logic:
1 cui bono? No one in America, not really. This pushes the country closer to civil strife
2 the job looks extremely professional. State level lethality. A clever sniper who got clean away
Putin has made it clear he’s happy to kill people abroad and he’d love to see the USA sink into internecine violence. I expect Xi would be positive, too
Murdering Charlie Kirk could be the perfect trigger event to allow Trump to send armed militia into cities he dislikes and round up "radical liberals". Trump needs to impose martial law to scrap the mid terms. He benefits from this absolutely.
You cannot discount this being a false flag. Especially when MAGA immediately screams that the perp is liberal and demands vengeance. Everyone stopped talking about Epstein as well. Perfect.
The perp was first claimed to be trans...
It now happens after most US shootings. Including pictures that (AFAICT) are *not* of the person believed to be the shooter.
A number of MPs have had their offices attacked in recent months. I hope if they are caught they get the extra special harsh treatment, like the authorities stamp down hard on rioting, any attack on a politician / their offices etc, should carry similar extra penalties. It is incredibly important that they are protected even if I don't agree with them e.g. Jezza getting assaulted.
As I said, the left are on a roll of violence at the moment.
There’s a horribly plausible theory on X that says a foreign actor likely killed Kirk
Logic:
1 cui bono? No one in America, not really. This pushes the country closer to civil strife
2 the job looks extremely professional. State level lethality. A clever sniper who got clean away
Putin has made it clear he’s happy to kill people abroad and he’d love to see the USA sink into internecine violence. I expect Xi would be positive, too
Right now it’s clear that whoever pulled the trigger knew what they were doing. They took a single shot with a rifle and quickly cleared off afterwards, before anyone knew what had happened. There’s a lot of Americans with those skills, unless and until they find him it’s unlikely we’ll know the motive.
Remember that he isn’t a politician, there weren’t Secret Service everywhere and only half a dozen local police in attendance, mostly for crowd control. This was a guy famous for setting up a stand in the middle of a university and asking strangers to step up to the mic and debate him, which is exactly what he was doing yesterday. He was a relatively moderate conservative youth movement leader, who had been doing the same thing for the past decade, willing to discuss and debate with anyone on any subject.
Yes, it does push the country closer to civil strife, there’s plenty of people online who think his death is a positive, which is obviously a very unhealthy attitude.
That’s one thing I respected about Charlie — and it’s worth emphasizing because the assassin attacked him as he spoke on campus — he wasn’t afraid of a debate. He was willing to talk to anyone. And when he was shot in the middle of a debate, the assassin didn’t just take aim at a precious human being, created in the image of God, he took aim at the American experiment itself.
Starmer takes too long to make a decision once again.
I'm not sure that's strictly true, or more accurately yes it is true these days but it shouldn't be. Bear in mind this scandal is less than a week old. In pre-world-wide-web (say 1995) or pre-smartphone (say 2015) days he could have taken longer and we would have been less concerned. But now it is the time of instant reaction which, I feel, places too much burden on the PM. There's going to have to be a "hand of the King" role sooner or later so the PM isn't distracted by stuff like this.
In this particular instance I think the bigger point is the judgement in making the Mandelson appointment in the first place.
I think this was one of those situations of institutional blindness - Mandelson has attained a semi-mythical status among the UK political class and political journalists as a master of his art (despite managing to have a rather poor track record of being able to hold a government job down). I am sure that on paper Starmer wanted to bask in the reflected glow, and get the same boost as Brown received when he brought Mandelson back to government.
But Mandelson has always been a figure with skeletons. And we live in an era where public figures are increasingly unable to hide from their actions and associations, given the spread of news and information. As such a figure and knowing he had even so much of a tangential friendship with Epstein - and let us not forget that it was friendship with Epstein that brought down Prince Andrew only a few short years ago - it seems incredibly curious on reflection that anyone deemed him a good fit for a high profile role.
None of this reflects well on Starmer.
His moral judgement was poor in appointing Mandelson in the first place, considering that he was a man known to have plenty of skeletons in a fairly poorly secured closet, along with a previous track record of scandals which lead to his sacking.
His political judgement is even worse. Why sack Mandelson today, instead of 5 minutes before PMQs yesterday? Mandelson was a dead man walking from the moment the "birthday card" surfaced, but letting Kemi spend six questions roughing him up over it yesterday, then sacking Mandelson today appears to be Starmer choosing the worst of all his possible options.
Haven't looked it up, but PLEASE let it be Day Trip to Bangor.
Sadly not
"A cathedral choir has been suspended after it performed an “entirely inappropriate” piece protesting about job losses during holy communion.
Bangor Cathedral, which was criticised earlier this year over a culture of excessive drinking, sexual promiscuity and inappropriate banter, said it had “paused all choir activity” for a month after the incident. It also said that Joe Cooper, the cathedral’s director of music, was “currently away from his duties”.
The choir sang a specially composed “Canticle of Indignation” as clergy distributed wafers and wine during communion. At the end of the piece, the choir silently walked out.
The canticle’s lyrics included “Lord, how long shall the ungodly triumph?” and “How long shall all wicked doers speak so disdainfully?”
Simon Ogdon, its author, wrote on Facebook that he was “honoured to be in the same position as #banksy in having my art publicly censured”. He added: “There is a long history of protest through art, even through church music … and I am proud to be part of that. One of the clearest signs of tyranny is its desire to silence dissent and opposition, and that can never be tolerated.”
The protest was staged after the cathedral announced that five out of eight members of staff were at risk of redundancy due to financial pressures. The music director’s hours were to be reduced, it said."
Which is the first sensible thing I've seen this week.
This is good, but sad.
* Several hundred drones are in battle on any given day in Ukraine and AI tells me[1] this will/has exceeded 1,000 per day. "Thousands per month" won't be enough. * Ukraine is slowly bleeding to death and needs a gamechanger. It needs something that will kill factories/storage depots, not just incoming drones/missiles. Interceptor drones won't be enough.
Of course - but this is about building UK capacity to build cost effective kit to resist a mass drone attack, rather than directly arming Ukraine. We need to do more of that, too, of course.
I see Boris and Farage have also tweeted about Charlie Kirk.
Absolutely bizarre. I don’t recognise this terminally online, house of mirrors that British politics has turned into.
You've lived in New York for several years, as I have also lived in Ireland, and yet we're both here, online, in a primarily British politics website, discussing the resignation of the British Ambassador to the US.
You are part of that world, as am I.
It’s quite bizarre to see a long term regular on PB - arguably THE online forum for political obsessives - complaining about other commenters being politically obsessed
Also the whole “obsession with America” thing goes two ways. Yes we are probably over interested in their affairs, but these days Americans of a certain type are often weirdly well informed about Britain. They know who Farage is, they know about Tommy Robinson, they follow our debates on asylum and free speech etc
Essentially Anglophone politics is blending into one big spicy stew, and social media is the pot and the stove
Agree with your last points. Wholly regrettable. American politics is exponentially more polarized, corrupt, and batshit than Britain’s. Gresham’s law applies.
Fair enough. And yes to American polarisation. Look at THIS. America is in a terrible place
“TMZ announcing the death of Charlie Kirk.
You can hear the staff cheering as they receive the news that Kirk has died.”
It's a race to the bottom - look at Trump Jr's posts about the Pelosi attempted murder. I think parts of the American left have given up on the moral high ground and are now giving as good as they get. Difficult to blame them when you've got constant school shootings and Democrat politicians getting assassinated.
Oh yes absolutely. I don’t buy the idea it’s just the left. Trump is a fucking maniac and he’s in office. I do, however, think the American left is crazier right now, and a greater threat to western civilisation and freedoms, than the right. You will likely disagree. Without wanting to shoot me. Which is good
A part of me just wants them to get on with it now. Have the civil war. The overture is dragging on
I do disagree - January 6th is incontrovertible evidence.
Well that is strong evidence, certainly. But as against that there was the almost constant string of ('incredibly peaceful') rioting in American cities in the six months leading up to that by the left? That bit of Seattle which basically declared independence, its self-appointed police quickly killing two people? The 'don't hurt me' signs businesses had to put up in the hope that rioters would spare them? The NFA coalition? It's hard to make a judgement from this side of the Atlantic which side is worse, but it's clear there is villainy on both sides.
I'm back, no thanks to the French Rail strike that led to my sleeper train being cancelled.
425 km ridden down the Canal du Midi and Canal du Robine. Some of it, in particular the Canal du Robine, is tricky on a touring bike even with slightly wider tyres.
Due to the train strike I had the pleasure of having to cycle across Paris on my return at midnight. Lovely!
Toulouse was good, Carcassonne was a bit disappointing (expectations too high). Beziers was good and Sete is stunning. La Somail and Capestang are recommended. Narbonne is ok. Port-LaNouvelle should be avoided. Lovely beach, but industrial to start with then a Margate like front. Actually I would give the Canal du Robine a miss altogether and spend more time around Canal du Midi.
We have noticed over the years the increase in electric bikes, but we estimated it is now over 90% on these trips.
The french respect for bike riders was appreciated.
PS Portugal in 2 weeks, where I might for the first time ride an electric bike.
Jeremy Hunt on WATO very circumspect and not at all partisan. He doesn't think it affects the visit next week, he was very impressive. Montague, if she doesn't get her expected answer loads the next question to get the answer she wants.
Hunt seems to be experiencing something of a revival. He did an interview on TriP several weeks back, and it seems a lot of the leftists and centrists dads got in touch to say, more or less, that he was completely unlike the total c*nt they'd always assumed he was.
I'm back, no thanks to the French Rail strike that led to my sleeper train being cancelled.
425 km ridden down the Canal du Midi and Canal du Robine. Some of it, in particular the Canal du Robine, is tricky on a touring bike even with slightly wider tyres.
Due to the train strike I had the pleasure of having to cycle across Paris on my return at midnight. Lovely!
Toulouse was good, Carcassonne was a bit disappointing (expectations too high). Beziers was good and Sete is stunning. La Somail and Capestang are recommended. Narbonne is ok. Port-LaNouvelle should be avoided. Lovely beach, but industrial to start with then a Margate like front. Actually I would give the Canal du Robine a miss altogether and spend more time around Canal du Midi.
We have noticed over the years the increase in electric bikes, but we estimated it is now over 90% on these trips.
The french respect for bike riders was appreciated.
PS Portugal in 2 weeks, where I might for the first time ride an electric bike.
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I hadn't heard of him either.
Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing. After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.
I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".
It is perfectly possible to be thoroughly nasty piece of work and a Biblical Christian. His views on stoning gays, that slavery is fine and dandy and that women should be subservient are all backed in scripture.
It doesn't justify his murder of course. However improbable, I would have preferred him to study and absorb the Sermon on the Mount, and to repent of his intolerance, welcoming the stranger, feeding the poor, visiting criminals in jail etc. The killer has denied him the possibility of that sort of spiritual growth.
I see people like Kirk very much as the Pharisees were seen by the Gospel writers, obsessed with rules and propping up the establishment, rather than embracing the Spirit.
While acknowledging that many on here who are now experts on the Life and Works of Charlie Kirk, I am simply someone who has followed his (snipped for the socials) interactions on campuses over the past months and years.
I have never heard of him saying he wants to stone gays and I googled it just now so would be interested in your sources. Would he have said something like that? Maybe - if it is in scripture, in which case I'm sure it would have come with context. I have never, ever heard him wish harm on anyone or any type of person. Please post the clip.
But it is surely the height of hubris for you, as a co-religionist of his, arbitrarily to decide which bits of scripture are okay and which bits are, er, beyond the pale.
Here's Kirk saying that stoning gay men is part of God's perfect law:
So you, as a co-religionist, put yourself in a position to opine on which bits of God's perfect law [sic] is perfect and which isn't.
That right?
Christianity in its broadest sense has a couple of billion adherents across the globe. It is absurd to suggest that the faith possesses one fixed position on all matters, immutable for all the two billion at all times, absurd to suggest that Christians don't or shouldn't engage in critical evaluation of sacred texts, absurd to suggest it is incapable of development and understanding, and absurd to suggest there is something called a 'perfect law' from 3000 years ago to be understood a priori.
You wouldn't understand a triviality like the rules of football in that naive manner. So it isn't true either for the complex ramifications of Christianity.
Nah you're normally more logically consistent than this although I appreciate religion fucks with peoples' logical faculty.
If God's law is perfect then there is one law. If it is "open to interpretation" then there is no God's perfect law because each interpretation accords with each human's thoughts, hopes, fears and prejudices that is doing the interpretation. So there's no point having a God's perfect law. It is wholly man made.
Religion and reality is slightly more complex than this. Let us assume for this discussion there is a thing in god as she is in herself to be called 'God's perfect law'. (Though personally I am agnostic about it).
The problem you immediately hit is about the human capacity for knowledge and certainty, together with the effects of the passage of time. Ie, the problems of change and epistemology.
'The perfect law of God' and 'for me to know what it is' are utterly different concepts. One belongs to the unknowable world of divine nature, the other belongs to the contingent world we know so well.
God's eternal 'perfect law' may allow for a thing at Time A to be god's law, but by time B to be not god's law.
The conversion of any attribute of God into human certain knowledge is by no means an obvious or achievable process, despite the enthusiastic belief of many humans that it can be done.
MRD applies. Of course you would say that - oh there is an immutable, perfect law but we are imperfect so we can't know the unknowable. So there is forever an angel or monkey or somesuch on your shoulder but you don't quite know what they want so we can only just try to begin to comprehend and we are bound by our pathetic mortality and limited understanding.
ie just what I said before. It comes down to our own interpretation. It is as much use to say there is a God's perfect law as there is to say there is a spaghetti monster at the bottom of your garden whose truth is The Only Truth just that we can't speak Spaghettiese.
Jeremy Hunt on WATO very circumspect and not at all partisan. He doesn't think it affects the visit next week, he was very impressive. Montague, if she doesn't get her expected answer loads the next question to get the answer she wants.
Hunt seems to be experiencing something of a revival. He did an interview on TriP several weeks back, and it seems a lot of the leftists and centrists dads got in touch to say, more or less, that he was completely unlike the total c*nt they'd always assumed he was.
The main black mark against Hunt is that he and Sunak deliberately salted the earth against the incoming Labour administration.
A number of MPs have had their offices attacked in recent months. I hope if they are caught they get the extra special harsh treatment, like the authorities stamp down hard on rioting, any attack on a politician / their offices etc, should carry similar extra penalties. It is incredibly important that they are protected even if I don't agree with them e.g. Jezza getting assaulted.
As I said, the left are on a roll of violence at the moment.
There’s a horribly plausible theory on X that says a foreign actor likely killed Kirk
Logic:
1 cui bono? No one in America, not really. This pushes the country closer to civil strife
2 the job looks extremely professional. State level lethality. A clever sniper who got clean away
Putin has made it clear he’s happy to kill people abroad and he’d love to see the USA sink into internecine violence. I expect Xi would be positive, too
Right now it’s clear that whoever pulled the trigger knew what they were doing. They took a single shot with a rifle and quickly cleared off afterwards, before anyone knew what had happened. There’s a lot of Americans with those skills, unless and until they find him it’s unlikely we’ll know the motive.
Remember that he isn’t a politician, there weren’t Secret Service everywhere and only half a dozen local police in attendance, mostly for crowd control. This was a guy famous for setting up a stand in the middle of a university and asking strangers to step up to the mic and debate him, which is exactly what he was doing yesterday. He was a relatively moderate conservative youth movement leader, who had been doing the same thing for the past decade, willing to discuss and debate with anyone on any subject.
Yes, it does push the country closer to civil strife, there’s plenty of people online who think his death is a positive, which is obviously a very unhealthy attitude.
Absurd.
You of course don't pull the trigger, you squeeze it.
But yes - head/neck shot at X hundred metres happened to go through the carotid artery, fountains of blood, horrible to watch, this was someone who knew what they were doing.
Chris Mason (and Sarah Montague) going boots on for Starmer on R4WATO.
The BBC aren't giving this up until Starmer is toast. Mason suggesting to a sneering Montague that this alongside Rayner might be terminal. Also saying that this sacking will really annoy Trump.
Sarah bigging up Kemi.
Sky US correspondent taking no prisoners over attacking Starmer and his judgment
I'm back, no thanks to the French Rail strike that led to my sleeper train being cancelled.
425 km ridden down the Canal du Midi and Canal du Robine. Some of it, in particular the Canal du Robine, is tricky on a touring bike even with slightly wider tyres.
Due to the train strike I had the pleasure of having to cycle across Paris on my return at midnight. Lovely!
Toulouse was good, Carcassonne was a bit disappointing (expectations too high). Beziers was good and Sete is stunning. La Somail and Capestang are recommended. Narbonne is ok. Port-LaNouvelle should be avoided. Lovely beach, but industrial to start with then a Margate like front. Actually I would give the Canal du Robine a miss altogether and spend more time around Canal du Midi.
We have noticed over the years the increase in electric bikes, but we estimated it is now over 90% on these trips.
The french respect for bike riders was appreciated.
PS Portugal in 2 weeks, where I might for the first time ride an electric bike.
There are Tube strikes in London too
I know. Fortunately we don't take our bikes on the tube, but we did need to cross London on our return last night. Cancelling our sleeper was seriously disruptive, because all the alternatives got snapped up and when you have two bikes there aren't that many options on long distance trains. All we could get (in addition to lots of shrugs) was a train getting in to Paris at midnight. We rigged up lights on our helmets and found a hotel in Paris (we could have been on a bench). Obviously cost us more, but fortunately I hadn't booked anything else ahead so that was ok.
A number of MPs have had their offices attacked in recent months. I hope if they are caught they get the extra special harsh treatment, like the authorities stamp down hard on rioting, any attack on a politician / their offices etc, should carry similar extra penalties. It is incredibly important that they are protected even if I don't agree with them e.g. Jezza getting assaulted.
As I said, the left are on a roll of violence at the moment.
There’s a horribly plausible theory on X that says a foreign actor likely killed Kirk
Logic:
1 cui bono? No one in America, not really. This pushes the country closer to civil strife
2 the job looks extremely professional. State level lethality. A clever sniper who got clean away
Putin has made it clear he’s happy to kill people abroad and he’d love to see the USA sink into internecine violence. I expect Xi would be positive, too
Murdering Charlie Kirk could be the perfect trigger event to allow Trump to send armed militia into cities he dislikes and round up "radical liberals". Trump needs to impose martial law to scrap the mid terms. He benefits from this absolutely.
You cannot discount this being a false flag. Especially when MAGA immediately screams that the perp is liberal and demands vengeance. Everyone stopped talking about Epstein as well. Perfect.
The perp was first claimed to be trans...
It now happens after most US shootings. Including pictures that (AFAICT) are *not* of the person believed to be the shooter.
Sarah Montague on R4 suggesting that the current culture of violence could be down to Kamala Harris calling Trump a fascist.
Kamala Harris has a nationwide book tour from next week and her protection brief has been removed.
Jeremy Hunt on WATO very circumspect and not at all partisan. He doesn't think it affects the visit next week, he was very impressive. Montague, if she doesn't get her expected answer loads the next question to get the answer she wants.
Hunt seems to be experiencing something of a revival. He did an interview on TriP several weeks back, and it seems a lot of the leftists and centrists dads got in touch to say, more or less, that he was completely unlike the total c*nt they'd always assumed he was.
The main black mark against Hunt is that he and Sunak deliberately salted the earth against the incoming Labour administration.
Totally unnecessarily too. Labour would most likely have been chaotic enough without the groundwork by the Tories.
I see Boris and Farage have also tweeted about Charlie Kirk.
Absolutely bizarre. I don’t recognise this terminally online, house of mirrors that British politics has turned into.
You've lived in New York for several years, as I have also lived in Ireland, and yet we're both here, online, in a primarily British politics website, discussing the resignation of the British Ambassador to the US.
You are part of that world, as am I.
It’s quite bizarre to see a long term regular on PB - arguably THE online forum for political obsessives - complaining about other commenters being politically obsessed
Also the whole “obsession with America” thing goes two ways. Yes we are probably over interested in their affairs, but these days Americans of a certain type are often weirdly well informed about Britain. They know who Farage is, they know about Tommy Robinson, they follow our debates on asylum and free speech etc
Essentially Anglophone politics is blending into one big spicy stew, and social media is the pot and the stove
Agree with your last points. Wholly regrettable. American politics is exponentially more polarized, corrupt, and batshit than Britain’s. Gresham’s law applies.
Fair enough. And yes to American polarisation. Look at THIS. America is in a terrible place
“TMZ announcing the death of Charlie Kirk.
You can hear the staff cheering as they receive the news that Kirk has died.”
It's a race to the bottom - look at Trump Jr's posts about the Pelosi attempted murder. I think parts of the American left have given up on the moral high ground and are now giving as good as they get. Difficult to blame them when you've got constant school shootings and Democrat politicians getting assassinated.
Oh yes absolutely. I don’t buy the idea it’s just the left. Trump is a fucking maniac and he’s in office. I do, however, think the American left is crazier right now, and a greater threat to western civilisation and freedoms, than the right. You will likely disagree. Without wanting to shoot me. Which is good
A part of me just wants them to get on with it now. Have the civil war. The overture is dragging on
I do disagree - January 6th is incontrovertible evidence.
Well that is strong evidence, certainly. But as against that there was the almost constant string of ('incredibly peaceful') rioting in American cities in the six months leading up to that by the left? That bit of Seattle which basically declared independence, its self-appointed police quickly killing two people? The 'don't hurt me' signs businesses had to put up in the hope that rioters would spare them? The NFA coalition? It's hard to make a judgement from this side of the Atlantic which side is worse, but it's clear there is villainy on both sides.
As someone said on Twitter last night, there was very little evidence of people boarding up premises expecting a violent reaction to yesterday’s tragic incident.
Haven't looked it up, but PLEASE let it be Day Trip to Bangor.
I really want it to be "This Corrosion" or "Duel of the Fates". Both of which begin with a choir...
Looking at it, they composed a "Canticle of indignation", and sung it during administration of communion.
The choir sang a specially composed “Canticle of Indignation” as clergy distributed wafers and wine during communion. At the end of the piece, the choir silently walked out.
The canticle’s lyrics included “Lord, how long shall the ungodly triumph?” and “How long shall all wicked doers speak so disdainfully?”
Simon Ogdon, its author, wrote on Facebook that he was “honoured to be in the same position as #banksy in having my art publicly censured”. He added: “There is a long history of protest through art, even through church music … and I am proud to be part of that. One of the clearest signs of tyranny is its desire to silence dissent and opposition, and that can never be tolerated.”
The protest was staged after the cathedral announced that five out of eight members of staff were at risk of redundancy due to financial pressures. The music director’s hours were to be reduced, it said.
My posts upthread were not about PB obsessives, especially, but rather about the PM of the UK thinking that Charlie Kirk’s murder is materially important enough to be posted about.
What next, King Charles opining on “US Traitors”?
Charlie Kirk’s company ‘Turning Point’ would be quite closely associated with Farage’s Reform I would have thought. It was a vehicle to get youngsters on board with right wing politics. Starmer would have been a target for it, so a bit strange he felt the need to post. A bit like Trump commenting if the leader of momentum was murdered. Maybe he would, I don’t know
Chris Mason (and Sarah Montague) going boots on for Starmer on R4WATO.
The BBC aren't giving this up until Starmer is toast. Mason suggesting to a sneering Montague that this alongside Rayner might be terminal. Also saying that this sacking will really annoy Trump.
Sarah bigging up Kemi.
Sky US correspondent taking no prisoners over attacking Starmer and his judgment
Jeremy Hunt speaking as a former Foreign Secretary on the other hand was very measured. He suggested, because of his relationship with Trump, Mandelson was a risk, but probably one worth taking. He concluded with hindsight these risks don't always work out.
Convenient. Another lucky escape for the man for whom nothing ever crosses his desk. I mean its not like we have GCHQ, MI5, MI6, etc for checking out people. That dreaded old closed email account foils the spooks again.
Understand that the PM had *not* previously seen the emails with Epstein that emerged y'day. I'm told that info was not available at time of his appt as ambo - to PM or even to Mandelson - as they were from long-closed email address.
Chris Mason (and Sarah Montague) going boots on for Starmer on R4WATO.
The BBC aren't giving this up until Starmer is toast. Mason suggesting to a sneering Montague that this alongside Rayner might be terminal. Also saying that this sacking will really annoy Trump.
Sarah bigging up Kemi.
Sky US correspondent taking no prisoners over attacking Starmer and his judgment
Jeremy Hunt speaking as a former Foreign Secretary on the other hand was very measured. He suggested, because of his relationship with Trump, Mandelson was a risk, but probably one worth taking. He concluded with hindsight these risks don't always work out.
Sunak and Hunt would be a far better PM and COE then the present pare
Chris Mason (and Sarah Montague) going boots on for Starmer on R4WATO.
The BBC aren't giving this up until Starmer is toast. Mason suggesting to a sneering Montague that this alongside Rayner might be terminal. Also saying that this sacking will really annoy Trump.
Sarah bigging up Kemi.
Sky US correspondent taking no prisoners over attacking Starmer and his judgment
Jeremy Hunt speaking as a former Foreign Secretary on the other hand was very measured. He suggested, because of his relationship with Trump, Mandelson was a risk, but probably one worth taking. He concluded with hindsight these risks don't always work out.
Sunak and Hunt would be a far better PM and COE then the present pare
Convenient. Another lucky escape for the man for whom nothing ever crosses his desk. I mean its not like we have GCHQ, MI5, MI6, etc for checking out people. That dreaded old closed email account foils the spooks again.
Understand that the PM had *not* previously seen the emails with Epstein that emerged y'day. I'm told that info was not available at time of his appt as ambo - to PM or even to Mandelson - as they were from long-closed email address.
Haven't looked it up, but PLEASE let it be Day Trip to Bangor.
I really want it to be "This Corrosion" or "Duel of the Fates". Both of which begin with a choir...
Looking at it, they composed a "Canticle of indignation", and sung it during administration of communion.
The choir sang a specially composed “Canticle of Indignation” as clergy distributed wafers and wine during communion. At the end of the piece, the choir silently walked out.
The canticle’s lyrics included “Lord, how long shall the ungodly triumph?” and “How long shall all wicked doers speak so disdainfully?”
Simon Ogdon, its author, wrote on Facebook that he was “honoured to be in the same position as #banksy in having my art publicly censured”. He added: “There is a long history of protest through art, even through church music … and I am proud to be part of that. One of the clearest signs of tyranny is its desire to silence dissent and opposition, and that can never be tolerated.”
The protest was staged after the cathedral announced that five out of eight members of staff were at risk of redundancy due to financial pressures. The music director’s hours were to be reduced, it said.
Remember that he isn’t a politician, there weren’t Secret Service everywhere and only half a dozen local police in attendance, mostly for crowd control. This was a guy famous for setting up a stand in the middle of a university and asking strangers to step up to the mic and debate him, which is exactly what he was doing yesterday. He was a relatively moderate conservative youth movement leader, who had been doing the same thing for the past decade, willing to discuss and debate with anyone on any subject.
He was conscious of the risk. His studio at his 'compound' was unmarked, for security reasons
A number of MPs have had their offices attacked in recent months. I hope if they are caught they get the extra special harsh treatment, like the authorities stamp down hard on rioting, any attack on a politician / their offices etc, should carry similar extra penalties. It is incredibly important that they are protected even if I don't agree with them e.g. Jezza getting assaulted.
As I said, the left are on a roll of violence at the moment.
There’s a horribly plausible theory on X that says a foreign actor likely killed Kirk
Logic:
1 cui bono? No one in America, not really. This pushes the country closer to civil strife
2 the job looks extremely professional. State level lethality. A clever sniper who got clean away
Putin has made it clear he’s happy to kill people abroad and he’d love to see the USA sink into internecine violence. I expect Xi would be positive, too
Murdering Charlie Kirk could be the perfect trigger event to allow Trump to send armed militia into cities he dislikes and round up "radical liberals". Trump needs to impose martial law to scrap the mid terms. He benefits from this absolutely.
You cannot discount this being a false flag. Especially when MAGA immediately screams that the perp is liberal and demands vengeance. Everyone stopped talking about Epstein as well. Perfect.
Chris Mason (and Sarah Montague) going boots on for Starmer on R4WATO.
The BBC aren't giving this up until Starmer is toast. Mason suggesting to a sneering Montague that this alongside Rayner might be terminal. Also saying that this sacking will really annoy Trump.
Sarah bigging up Kemi.
Sky US correspondent taking no prisoners over attacking Starmer and his judgment
Jeremy Hunt speaking as a former Foreign Secretary on the other hand was very measured. He suggested, because of his relationship with Trump, Mandelson was a risk, but probably one worth taking. He concluded with hindsight these risks don't always work out.
Sunak and Hunt would be a far better PM and COE then the present pare
You’ve forgotten how profoundly useless Sunak was. Even at this hour, Starmer is a modest step up from Sunak, whose main legacy was cancelling most of HS2, cancelling Levelling Up, and spending nearly half a billion to nearly deport someone to Rwanda.
Chris Mason (and Sarah Montague) going boots on for Starmer on R4WATO.
The BBC aren't giving this up until Starmer is toast. Mason suggesting to a sneering Montague that this alongside Rayner might be terminal. Also saying that this sacking will really annoy Trump.
Sarah bigging up Kemi.
Sky US correspondent taking no prisoners over attacking Starmer and his judgment
Jeremy Hunt speaking as a former Foreign Secretary on the other hand was very measured. He suggested, because of his relationship with Trump, Mandelson was a risk, but probably one worth taking. He concluded with hindsight these risks don't always work out.
Sunak and Hunt would be a far better PM and COE then the present pare
Sunak had his fair share of party scandals. Most were legacy scandals from Boris Johnson. Starmer and Sunak are of a similar (really crap) ability. Hunt ruined his CoE legacy with his two NI stunts.
Comments
Last parliament had 3 PMs. Let's try for 4 this time.
If God's law is perfect then there is one law. If it is "open to interpretation" then there is no God's perfect law because each interpretation accords with each human's thoughts, hopes, fears and prejudices that is doing the interpretation. So there's no point having a God's perfect law. It is wholly man made.
Logic:
1 cui bono? No one in America, not really. This pushes the country closer to civil strife
2 the job looks extremely professional. State level lethality. A clever sniper who got clean away
Putin has made it clear he’s happy to kill people abroad and he’d love to see the USA sink into internecine violence. I expect Xi would be positive, too
Did all these clowns write eulogies for the two Democrat couples who were politically murdered in Minnesota?
It's a view, I suppose.
Let's all swoon together.
Lord alone knows who will be asking who what by the time they retun!
In now way is the murder of Charlie Kirk - one of countless MAGA influencers - a geopolitical incident of note.
Unless you have terminally online brain rot.
A disease that seems to have taken hold of the highest ranks of British politics, the BBC, and our own @TOPPING
I personally abhor all of this. I’m sure many who support JSO/XR defacing building will oppose this and the graffiti on Rayners swanky pad and vice versa.
Unacceptable behaviour is unacceptable whoever carries it out.
You are part of that world, as am I.
"State level lethality" isn't really a thing with snipers in the US. There are more than enough gun nuts there for one of them to be highly competent. And the immediate law enforcement response seems to have been pretty disorganised, with the FBI director live tweeting arrests of people who turned out to have nothing to do with it.
But certainly the Russian trolls are out there exploiting the news. Medvedev is blaming Ukraine.
(China tends to favour stability rather than chaos, so Xi is even more unlikely.)
James Roscoe has taken over as acting interim ambassador in the US, Downing Street said at the morning lobby briefing.
Guardian
You cannot discount this being a false flag. Especially when MAGA immediately screams that the perp is liberal and demands vengeance. Everyone stopped talking about Epstein as well. Perfect.
The problem you immediately hit is about the human capacity for knowledge and certainty, together with the effects of the passage of time. Ie, the problems of change and epistemology.
'The perfect law of God' and 'for me to know what it is' are utterly different concepts. One belongs to the unknowable world of divine nature, the other belongs to the contingent world we know so well.
God's eternal 'perfect law' may allow for a thing at Time A to be god's law, but by time B to be not god's law.
The conversion of any attribute of God into human certain knowledge is by no means an obvious or achievable process, despite the enthusiastic belief of many humans that it can be done.
@alaynatreene
Vice President JD Vance is canceling his plans to travel to NYC for 9/11
Instead he and Second Lady Usha Vance will travel to Salt Lake City to pay respects to Charlie Kirk's family
Also the whole “obsession with America” thing goes two ways. Yes we are probably over interested in their affairs, but these days Americans of a certain type are often weirdly well informed about Britain. They know who Farage is, they know about Tommy Robinson, they follow our debates on asylum and free speech etc
Essentially Anglophone politics is blending into one big spicy stew, and social media is the pot and the stove
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/groundbreaking-ukraine-tech-sharing-agreement-to-deliver-drones-and-support-jobs
Which is the first sensible thing I've seen this week.
The translation issues with the Bible, for example, are extensive, and that's leaving aside many issues to do with selecting what should be part of it. How much of the blame for that would you lay at God's feet and how much at the humans who have tried to propagate his word?
I'm not remotely religious, but I don't find your argument particularly convincing.
As well as the Bible itself (much of which is meant to be allegory rather than literal), there is a vast literature from later authors, church traditions, litergy and common practice. Most important of all is the inward experience of the Holy Spirit, as religion is not about textual analysis for the vast majority of adherents. Of course what is considered relevant varies with personal situation and experience. Christianity has never been one unchanging doctrine.
Interpreting the Bible purely by textual analysis and nothing else is rather like studying a painting by chemical analysis of paint pigments. It tells you something, but is very far from understanding the full picture.
I thang you (doffs hat, bows at audience)
I think there are enough unhinged individuals in America to be responsible, and one of them has to be a bit more professional than the normal ones.
Wholly regrettable.
American politics is exponentially more polarized, corrupt, and batshit than Britain’s.
Gresham’s law applies.
Plenty of opportunity for our industry and theirs to learn a lot from each other, both now and after the war.
Was really hoping it was In The Garden Of Eden
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulDC1w1ydLI
And back then we thought everything was frenetic with 24 hour news.
I’ve been accused of being obsessed with the Lib Dem’s by people who endlessly either post about Reform or Trump.
Anyone here accusing anyone of being obsessed. Physician heal thyself.
But in his culture war politics he was quite blatant; for example his was vitriolic about wealthy "secular Jews" donating to Universities and charities, which hostility I would suggest was informed by his literalist theological views on "Israel" * (from his religion), applied to his politics.
Here he is talking about it, trying to set 'Evangelical Christians' like him up as the victims, and liberals up as the Jew Haters:
Weeks later on “The Charlie Kirk Show,” he also said that Jewish people control “not just the colleges; it’s the nonprofits, it’s the movies, it’s Hollywood, it’s all of it.”
https://www.mediamatters.org/media/4013084
That's what I am on about when I talk about NatCons inserting their theology into their politics.
* I would analyse that as some USA Evangelicals trying to treat their bibles as a literalist history book, which gives us young earth (6000 years) creationism, anti-evolution and other things including taking prophetic books (eg Revelation) and thinking it is coming true now so they must defend Israel etc. The approach comes from inserting a scientific-type reductionist worldview into their religion and imposing it on the Bible.
“TMZ announcing the death of Charlie Kirk.
You can hear the staff cheering as they receive the news that Kirk has died.”
https://x.com/mylordbebo/status/1966054487270752767?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
* Several hundred drones are in battle on any given day in Ukraine and AI tells me[1] this will/has exceeded 1,000 per day. "Thousands per month" won't be enough.
* Ukraine is slowly bleeding to death and needs a gamechanger. It needs something that will kill factories/storage depots, not just incoming drones/missiles. Interceptor drones won't be enough.
[1] https://www.perplexity.ai/search/how-many-drones-are-in-conflic-DK8dy96XTneab.8DQC4NqA
I think this was one of those situations of institutional blindness - Mandelson has attained a semi-mythical status among the UK political class and political journalists as a master of his art (despite managing to have a rather poor track record of being able to hold a government job down). I am sure that on paper Starmer wanted to bask in the reflected glow, and get the same boost as Brown received when he brought Mandelson back to government.
But Mandelson has always been a figure with skeletons. And we live in an era where public figures are increasingly unable to hide from their actions and associations, given the spread of news and information. As such a figure and knowing he had even so much of a tangential friendship with Epstein - and let us not forget that it was friendship with Epstein that brought down Prince Andrew only a few short years ago - it seems incredibly curious on reflection that anyone deemed him a good fit for a high profile role.
The BBC aren't giving this up until Starmer is toast. Mason suggesting to a sneering Montague that this alongside Rayner might be terminal. Also saying that this sacking will really annoy Trump.
Sarah bigging up Kemi.
Look at the Luigi case too - they've run out of patience.
Remember that he isn’t a politician, there weren’t Secret Service everywhere and only half a dozen local police in attendance, mostly for crowd control. This was a guy famous for setting up a stand in the middle of a university and asking strangers to step up to the mic and debate him, which is exactly what he was doing yesterday. He was a relatively moderate conservative youth movement leader, who had been doing the same thing for the past decade, willing to discuss and debate with anyone on any subject.
Yes, it does push the country closer to civil strife, there’s plenty of people online who think his death is a positive, which is obviously a very unhealthy attitude.
A part of me just wants them to get on with it now. Have the civil war. The overture is dragging on
Having said that I do enjoy (most of) your posts and I'm not adverse to posts knocking the LDs and/or Davey.
What next, King Charles opining on “US Traitors”?
That’s one thing I respected about Charlie — and it’s worth emphasizing because the assassin attacked him as he spoke on campus — he wasn’t afraid of a debate. He was willing to talk to anyone. And when he was shot in the middle of a debate, the assassin didn’t just take aim at a precious human being, created in the image of God, he took aim at the American experiment itself.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/opinion/charlie-kirk-assassination-debate.html
His moral judgement was poor in appointing Mandelson in the first place, considering that he was a man known to have plenty of skeletons in a fairly poorly secured closet, along with a previous track record of scandals which lead to his sacking.
His political judgement is even worse. Why sack Mandelson today, instead of 5 minutes before PMQs yesterday? Mandelson was a dead man walking from the moment the "birthday card" surfaced, but letting Kemi spend six questions roughing him up over it yesterday, then sacking Mandelson today appears to be Starmer choosing the worst of all his possible options.
"A cathedral choir has been suspended after it performed an “entirely inappropriate” piece protesting about job losses during holy communion.
Bangor Cathedral, which was criticised earlier this year over a culture of excessive drinking, sexual promiscuity and inappropriate banter, said it had “paused all choir activity” for a month after the incident. It also said that Joe Cooper, the cathedral’s director of music, was “currently away from his duties”.
The choir sang a specially composed “Canticle of Indignation” as clergy distributed wafers and wine during communion. At the end of the piece, the choir silently walked out.
The canticle’s lyrics included “Lord, how long shall the ungodly triumph?” and “How long shall all wicked doers speak so disdainfully?”
Simon Ogdon, its author, wrote on Facebook that he was “honoured to be in the same position as #banksy in having my art publicly censured”. He added: “There is a long history of protest through art, even through church music … and I am proud to be part of that. One of the clearest signs of tyranny is its desire to silence dissent and opposition, and that can never be tolerated.”
The protest was staged after the cathedral announced that five out of eight members of staff were at risk of redundancy due to financial pressures. The music director’s hours were to be reduced, it said."
We need to do more of that, too, of course.
https://youtu.be/511MTiE5dGg?si=A2Ml_damox2hW1nw
I'm back, no thanks to the French Rail strike that led to my sleeper train being cancelled.
425 km ridden down the Canal du Midi and Canal du Robine. Some of it, in particular the Canal du Robine, is tricky on a touring bike even with slightly wider tyres.
Due to the train strike I had the pleasure of having to cycle across Paris on my return at midnight. Lovely!
Toulouse was good, Carcassonne was a bit disappointing (expectations too high). Beziers was good and Sete is stunning. La Somail and Capestang are recommended. Narbonne is ok. Port-LaNouvelle should be avoided. Lovely beach, but industrial to start with then a Margate like front. Actually I would give the Canal du Robine a miss altogether and spend more time around Canal du Midi.
We have noticed over the years the increase in electric bikes, but we estimated it is now over 90% on these trips.
The french respect for bike riders was appreciated.
PS Portugal in 2 weeks, where I might for the first time ride an electric bike.
ie just what I said before. It comes down to our own interpretation. It is as much use to say there is a God's perfect law as there is to say there is a spaghetti monster at the bottom of your garden whose truth is The Only Truth just that we can't speak Spaghettiese.
You of course don't pull the trigger, you squeeze it.
But yes - head/neck shot at X hundred metres happened to go through the carotid artery, fountains of blood, horrible to watch, this was someone who knew what they were doing.
Kamala Harris has a nationwide book tour from next week and her protection brief has been removed.
The choir sang a specially composed “Canticle of Indignation” as clergy distributed wafers and wine during communion. At the end of the piece, the choir silently walked out.
The canticle’s lyrics included “Lord, how long shall the ungodly triumph?” and “How long shall all wicked doers speak so disdainfully?”
Simon Ogdon, its author, wrote on Facebook that he was “honoured to be in the same position as #banksy in having my art publicly censured”. He added: “There is a long history of protest through art, even through church music … and I am proud to be part of that. One of the clearest signs of tyranny is its desire to silence dissent and opposition, and that can never be tolerated.”
The protest was staged after the cathedral announced that five out of eight members of staff were at risk of redundancy due to financial pressures. The music director’s hours were to be reduced, it said.
https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2025/0911/1532957-rte-eurovision/
The first of several?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce845w70g0yo
Not really a smoking gun as the girlfriend could have received an inheritance rather than money from the parents.
Actually it’s 3 - Iceland have also said as much
Understand that the PM had *not* previously seen the emails with Epstein that emerged y'day. I'm told that info was not available at time of his appt as ambo - to PM or even to Mandelson - as they were from long-closed email address.
https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/1966085469915197948
Which is not normally on the Canticle rota.
https://x.com/EmilyThornberry/status/1966086125698548086?s=19
Even at this hour, Starmer is a modest step up from Sunak, whose main legacy was cancelling most of HS2, cancelling Levelling Up, and spending nearly half a billion to nearly deport someone to Rwanda.