Nobody gave a flying fuck about the Chagos people for decades.
Suddenly they are at ground zero of the culture war.
Make it stop please...
Not quite
The Tories were concerned enough to have 11 or 12 rounds of talks about it before leaving the contract in Keirs in tray
You seem to be under the delusion that because there were talks there should be an agreement.
Having many rounds of talks that deliberately go nowhere is quite a typical way of evading doing something you have no interest in doing, without outright saying so.
The difference is Keir didn't just have talks, he actually signed an agreement.
Fool.
I’ve seen this but I’m too busy too tired right now and I need to sleep. Besides, I don’t mind the resident pirate or any PBer or anyone in politics claiming Labour negotiated the whole thing from scratch in just 8 weeks as it makes them sound very clueless and stupid. The Explanatory Memorandum (2025) document published by Parliament I linked to already summarises all the agreements in each eleven rounds of Conservative negotiations, but Labour likely publishes the full minutes of those 11 rounds ahead of commons debate to slaughter the Conservative front bench position.
Chagos deal passes through the commons at 19:21 on May 19th 2026.
Get some reading comprehension, I never said they negotiated it from scratch.
I said they made the stupid decision of actually agreeing the damned stupid thing.
Instead of scheduling another 12 rounds of talks.
we established 11 rounds of negotiations did happen before Labour came to power from the Conservatives told us this to Parliament in written answers. in late 24 and in 25 documents released by both governments after conclusion of talks, about what was discussed and agreed at which round of talks. The UKs Explanatory Memorandum (2025) acts as a "negotiation history" of the 11 rounds held between November 2022 and June 2024, what was discussed, agreed, and added to the Framework document at each round of talks. According to all official briefings and retrospectively published documents, the following was already "on paper" established as the working framework BEFORE Labour came to power. * The "Plan A" Framework: The core trade-off—transferring full sovereignty of the archipelago to Mauritius in exchange for a long-term lease of the Diego Garcia military base—was already the established before the change in government to Labour. it was at the September 23 negotiation the framework for ceding sovereignty, the lease, and the substantial payments were all drawn up and put into the existing ongoing Framework document. * The 99-Year Lease Principle: The concept of a 99-year lease to ensure the "continued effective operation" of the base was a foundational element of the early Conservative-led talks. But 99yr Lease started life in 2019 as a Mauritius offer in a presentation to the US who then contacted UK asking us to explore it as a way out of our problems. Boris passed this on to Liz to explore, who liked the idea and made it government policy to negotiate it. * Security & Veto Clauses: Technical provisions, such as the 24-nautical-mile buffer zone around Diego Garcia and a veto over foreign military presence on the outer islands, were * hashed out and agreed in principle during these early rounds to secure UK/US strategic interests. * The Financial Baseline: While the final £3.4 billion figure was formalised later, UK government has stated that the financial settlement was "acceptable to both sides" and built upon calculations reviewed during those 11 rounds. It was also the Conservatives in the 2023 technical sessions who insisted it must be indexed the £101M annual payments, to ensure the value of the lease remains stable against inflation. It was also established in early rounds that while the UK would provide the "Resettlement Trust Fund," the actual implementation and management of resettlement on the outer islands would be a Mauritian sovereign right. These are some of the difficult agreements already in place inherited by Labour, which allowed them to finalise everything and own the Chagos Deal in just 8 weeks from coming to power!
I have cut and pasted it from when you obviously missed me boring everyone to death on this detail. I’m pretty much done my eyes are closing. But are you quite clear on the India bit?
Why are the Foreign Office obsessed with leaseback? You’d think they’d have learnt from Hong Kong.
Presumably, the FO views Hong Kong as a great triumph, as it successfully managed to give away a chunk of our territory to one of our enemies.
Ignoring the fact that their policy would trash the economy it’s just more hate and division .
Many of those on ILR won’t reach the salary threshold . There should be a campaign to get them to get citizenship and ensure they can vote , every vote is needed to ensure the disgusting hate filled Reform are nowhere near power.
Went to see Wuthering Heights this evening, a rather liberal interpretation of the novel but a brooding yet colourful, tense and dramatic performance of it nonetheless at times often quite racy
It’s only fitting that you went to see Wuthering Heights after Worth Valley chose a Tory councillor in their recent by-election.
Went to see Wuthering Heights this evening, a rather liberal interpretation of the novel but a brooding yet colourful, tense and dramatic performance of it nonetheless at times often quite racy
Sounds good, raciness in film seemed to virtually disappear for a couple of decades unless that was entirely the point, anything remotely sexual is hard to get a pass from the censors even as they get more accepting of violence and language. Whereas racy smut seems to abount in literature.
Ah so they were breaking newsing someone else's story
Allegations fron
Yusuf Maggie Oliver
That Starmer used form of warning long used before he took COS job to warn suspected paedos not to contact specific children
A formal document issued under various Governments for decades by all police forces
A Daily Express cut and paste hatchet job but GB News decide critics eg Yusuf and a semi demented ex copper decide it's all on Starmer
Yikes
His relaunch must really be worrying them
It bears repeating once again that just because people attack a political figure or party, even in hyperbolic or misleading terms, it does not in itself mean they are worried by or are in fear of that figure or party. It can be the case, but it's also just standard practice or an attempt to further beat down a wounded opponent.
So in dismissing any such attacks, sure, perhaps they are worried by a relaunch, but don't rely on that being so in every case, it can be a coping mechanism.
Part of the problem is the increasing weaponisation of science and misrepresentation (by all sides) of science to try to win political arguments.
How often do we hear people say "the science says we must ..." [insert speaker's political opinion here].
No, the science does not say what we must do. The science gives us advice and choices with consequences, but politics must decide which choices are acceptable and which are not. So long as you are prepared to own the consequences.
The problem is increasingly people do not want consequences either.
This is mainly because people are trying to avoid debate. So they do this by framing any argument in such a way that to hold an opposing view is to be complicit in genocide, child abuse, innumerate, traitorous, or otherwise invalid.
Rather than saying, "I believe this policy is preferable because it has these advantages..." arguments are made of the form, "to refuse to implement this policy is to condemn the people of the nation to an eternity of needless torment."
One of these types of arguments is also a lot more eye-catching and motivating, in addition to the advantage of not needing to address contrary views.
Part of the problem is the increasing weaponisation of science and misrepresentation (by all sides) of science to try to win political arguments.
How often do we hear people say "the science says we must ..." [insert speaker's political opinion here].
No, the science does not say what we must do. The science gives us advice and choices with consequences, but politics must decide which choices are acceptable and which are not. So long as you are prepared to own the consequences.
The problem is increasingly people do not want consequences either.
This is mainly because people are trying to avoid debate. So they do this by framing any argument in such a way that to hold an opposing view is to be complicit in genocide, child abuse, innumerate, traitorous, or otherwise invalid.
Rather than saying, "I believe this policy is preferable because it has these advantages..." arguments are made of the form, "to refuse to implement this policy is to condemn the people of the nation to an eternity of needless torment."
One of these types of arguments is also a lot more eye-catching and motivating, in addition to the advantage of not needing to address contrary views.
Good point well made, and hard to counter such an approach. It's an area where the public are at fault for encouraging such behaviour by responding more to it, and politicians at fault for being weak leaders in giving in to that temptation.
Today's Tory outing in case you missed it with all the drug wars stuff.
My children should definitely go to Oxbridge Your children should count themselves lucky to get Bristol Their children should do apprenticeships for boiler making
Stopping funding for creative arts degrees funded by taxpayers and redirecting it to apprenticeships which generally see higher wages is hardly a bad thing. Nothing to stop you paying for a creative arts degree yourself either
I can't remember which party it was - maybe LDems, maybe ScotGreens - but they had a policy that was (to paraphrase) "Ok, you've turned 18 - here's a pot of zero-interest money," With the choices to 'spend it' on a degree, or technical apprenticeship, or starting a business, or... (just not 'blow and hookers').
Back to the header for a moment; What is 'confidence in science' supposed to mean?
For example, I have huge confidence in the empirical, experimental process and in the trustworthiness of inductive reasoning and the reliability of the science community in reporting truthfully, and in the peer process by which stuff is reviewed, and in the principle of all findings that count as empirical being subject to the possibility of falsification by processes all parties would accept.
But I don't have any trust in a process in which politicians say they are 'led by the science' or 'following the science' or that scientists themselves are better at difficult moral decisions - which by definition are not empirical science - than the rest of us.
Another issue is the way people conflate "social science" with, well, actual Popperian science. The measles vaccine sits firmly in the latter category. Sociology is clearly the former. Economics is somewhere in between. Then you get these slightly creative interpretations of hard science being presented as if they are the science, and it’s hardly surprising some people start to get sceptical.
A good example is the whole "brains don’t finish maturing until 25" line that crops up in criminology (which itself probably sits roughly where economics does on the "real science" spectrum). It’s true that brain structure continues changing until around 25. But who decided that that point is what counts as "mature"? Now we’re told (not remotely to my surprise when the 25 thing started being banded about" that it's actually into the 30s. And from there it’s a short hop to policy like Scotland’s under-25 distinctions, and a general tendency to keep stretching the definition of "maturation" whenever it’s convenient. Why stop at 25? Or 30? Who’s to say the changes in our 60s aren’t the "real" maturation?
People look at this sort of thing - what feels like overconfident extrapolation by people educated beyond their competence - and they draw the wrong conclusion and go anti-science. I don’t agree with that reaction, but I can at least see where it comes from.
Still, mothers like in the OP are appalling.
I think you're being a bit unfair on social sciences there. Certainly there's a lot of poor science done, but on brains maturing for instance, that would be something that involves neurologists and various brain scientists, and some of the experiments done are quite impressive. I think we can definitely say there are implications for decision-making and impulsive behaviour in young adults.
Your beef really seems to be with people misinterpreting the science, or drawing a tortured series of tenuous implications from it to draw conclusions that aren't warranted - and as you say that happens with physics as well as with the social sciences
The chief problem is that anything in society that is invested with authority - whether that is science, or religion, or anything else - will have people trying to appropriate that authority in order to justify their hobby horse - whether that's sexual morality, racism, or squeamishness about holding people accountable for their actions - and it's a constant struggle to discriminate between those who are being cavalier with it, and those who have drawn justified conclusions.
(As another example the recent radiolabs podcast on self-esteem was really interesting in terms of the way in which the science can be misrepresented, but that it can also say interesting things when it is done right.)
Part of the problem is the increasing weaponisation of science and misrepresentation (by all sides) of science to try to win political arguments.
How often do we hear people say "the science says we must ..." [insert speaker's political opinion here].
No, the science does not say what we must do. The science gives us advice and choices with consequences, but politics must decide which choices are acceptable and which are not. So long as you are prepared to own the consequences.
The problem is increasingly people do not want consequences either.
This is mainly because people are trying to avoid debate. So they do this by framing any argument in such a way that to hold an opposing view is to be complicit in genocide, child abuse, innumerate, traitorous, or otherwise invalid.
Rather than saying, "I believe this policy is preferable because it has these advantages..." arguments are made of the form, "to refuse to implement this policy is to condemn the people of the nation to an eternity of needless torment."
One of these types of arguments is also a lot more eye-catching and motivating, in addition to the advantage of not needing to address contrary views.
Perhaps it is more “to refuse to implement this policy is to commit heresy”
Back to the header for a moment; What is 'confidence in science' supposed to mean?
For example, I have huge confidence in the empirical, experimental process and in the trustworthiness of inductive reasoning and the reliability of the science community in reporting truthfully, and in the peer process by which stuff is reviewed, and in the principle of all findings that count as empirical being subject to the possibility of falsification by processes all parties would accept.
But I don't have any trust in a process in which politicians say they are 'led by the science' or 'following the science' or that scientists themselves are better at difficult moral decisions - which by definition are not empirical science - than the rest of us.
Another issue is the way people conflate "social science" with, well, actual Popperian science. The measles vaccine sits firmly in the latter category. Sociology is clearly the former. Economics is somewhere in between. Then you get these slightly creative interpretations of hard science being presented as if they are the science, and it’s hardly surprising some people start to get sceptical.
A good example is the whole "brains don’t finish maturing until 25" line that crops up in criminology (which itself probably sits roughly where economics does on the "real science" spectrum). It’s true that brain structure continues changing until around 25. But who decided that that point is what counts as "mature"? Now we’re told (not remotely to my surprise when the 25 thing started being banded about" that it's actually into the 30s. And from there it’s a short hop to policy like Scotland’s under-25 distinctions, and a general tendency to keep stretching the definition of "maturation" whenever it’s convenient. Why stop at 25? Or 30? Who’s to say the changes in our 60s aren’t the "real" maturation?
People look at this sort of thing - what feels like overconfident extrapolation by people educated beyond their competence - and they draw the wrong conclusion and go anti-science. I don’t agree with that reaction, but I can at least see where it comes from.
Still, mothers like in the OP are appalling.
I think you're being a bit unfair on social sciences there. Certainly there's a lot of poor science done, but on brains marketing for instance, that would be that involves neurologists and various brain scientists, and some of the experiments done are quite impressive. I think we can definitely say there are implications for decision-making and impulsive behaviour in young adults.
Your beef really seems to be with people misinterpreting the science, or drawing a tortured series of tenuous implications from it to draw conclusions that aren't warranted - and as you say that happens with physics as well as with the social sciences
The chief problem is that anything in society that is invited with authority - whether that is science, or religion, or anything else - will have people trying to appropriate that authority in order to justify their hobby horse - whether that's sexual morality, racism, or squeamishness about holding people accountable for their actions - and it's a constant struggle to discriminate between those who are being cavalier with it, and those who have drawn justified conclusions.
On the other hand you can just counter any "science" with "common sense innit. END OFF!!" Depressing to see Labour supporters on here becoming the voice of the grumpy old reactionary boomer earlier today. Then they wonder why younger folk are voting Green.
Which of the three, the Loser, the Unqualified (Hegseth), or the Crackpot (RFK, Jr.) will do the most damage?
If I had to bet, I would bet on the Crackpot. Humans, it seems to me, find it harder to cope with attacks from micro-parasites than macro-parasites, for example, Putin. Even now, when many, if not most, in advanced nations believe in germ theories. And even, since the 1930s, though we have been able to photograph the smallest micro-parasites, viruses.
And so we are more vulnerable to Crackpot, and others like him.
Today's Tory outing in case you missed it with all the drug wars stuff.
My children should definitely go to Oxbridge Your children should count themselves lucky to get Bristol Their children should do apprenticeships for boiler making
Ridiculous policy.
Who's going to be making boilers in the future?
I've made a lot of money out of it. Traditional coal fired, riveted together steam ones too, not household gas boilers.
It's quite possible to earn a lot more as a time served boilersmith than the average graduate, and if you're any good you'll never struggle to find a job.
Oh I was not knocking the trade, it was a joke!
Based on government policy supposedly being to phase out boilers for alternative technologies like heat pumps.
Which of the three, the Loser, the Unqualified (Hegseth), or the Crackpot (RFK, Jr.) will do the most damage?
If I had to bet, I would bet on the Crackpot. Humans, it seems to me, find it harder to cope with attacks from micro-parasites than macro-parasites, for example, Putin. Even now, when many, if not most, in advanced nations believe in germ theories. And even, since the 1930s, though we have been able to photograph the smallest micro-parasites, viruses.
And so we are more vulnerable to Crackpot, and others like him.
Definitely Crackpot, he is doing lasting damage.
The Unqualified are barely worth mentioning. Here today, gone tomorrow failures have often adorned politics.
The Loser is a close runner up due to the damage to democracy and standards, though he is to an extent weaponising polarism that already existed. And he is such an egotist that it is primarily all about him, which has a healthy guardrail that he will be gone soon either way.
The Crackpot is undermining faith in science and collective herd immunities are failing as a result, which we could be paying a price for in many years if not decades to come.
Today's Tory outing in case you missed it with all the drug wars stuff.
My children should definitely go to Oxbridge Your children should count themselves lucky to get Bristol Their children should do apprenticeships for boiler making
Ridiculous policy.
Who's going to be making boilers in the future?
I've made a lot of money out of it. Traditional coal fired, riveted together steam ones too, not household gas boilers.
It's quite possible to earn a lot more as a time served boilersmith than the average graduate, and if you're any good you'll never struggle to find a job.
Oh I was not knocking the trade, it was a joke!
Based on government policy supposedly being to phase out boilers for alternative technologies like heat pumps.
Heatpumps are pretty rubbish at heating water: you're probably best with a gas powered geyser.
Went to see Wuthering Heights this evening, a rather liberal interpretation of the novel but a brooding yet colourful, tense and dramatic performance of it nonetheless at times often quite racy
It contains a scene where Cathy masturbates, so yes you could call it racy.
An Englishman, a Scotsman, an Irishman, a Turk, a German, an Indian, an American, an Argentinean, a Dane, am Australian, a Slovakian, an Egyptian, a Japanese, a Moroccan, a Frenchman, a New Zealander, a Spaniard, a Russian, a Guatemalan, a Columbian, a Pakistani, a Malaysian, a Croatian, a Pole, a Lithuanian, a Chinese, a Sri Lankan, a Lebanese, a Cayman Islander, a Ugandan, a Vietnamese, a Korean, a Uruguayan, a Czech, an Icelander, a Mexican, a Finn, a Honduran, a Panamanian, an Andorran, an Israeli, a Venezuelan, a Fijian, a Peruvian, an Estonian, a Brazilian, a Portugese, a Liechtensteiner, a Mongolian, a Hungarian, a Canadian, a Moldovan, a Haitian, a Norfolk Islander, a Macedonian, a Bolivian, a Cook Islander, a Tajikistani, a Samoan, an Armenian, an Aruban, an Albanian, a Greenlander, a Micronesian, a Virgin Islander, a Georgian, a Bahaman, a Belarusian, a Cuban, a Tongan, a Cambodian, a Qatari, an Azerbaijani, a Romanian, a Chilean, a Kyrgyztani, a Jamaican, a Filipino, a Ukranian, a Dutchman, a Taiwanese, an Ecuadorian, a Costa Rican, a Swede, a Bulgarian, a Serb, a Swiss, a Greek, a Belgian, a Singaporean, an Italian, and a Norwegian walk into a fine restaurant.
Went to see Wuthering Heights this evening, a rather liberal interpretation of the novel but a brooding yet colourful, tense and dramatic performance of it nonetheless at times often quite racy
It contains a scene where Cathy masturbates, so yes you could call it racy.
You're so sex obsessed, you'd think a penis was phallic.
That wasn’t the controversial bit. The controversial bit was him saying “I’m just like you, with my 960 SAT and an inability to read” to a black audience.
'Reform’s Zia Yusuf will announce plans to “restore Britain’s Christian heritage” tomorrow
- Stop churches being converted into mosques by granting them listed status and requiring planning permission
Ignoring the non-church related bits, this is competitive xenophobia-signalling, and as nonsensical as it comes.
It won't do what he wants - planning permission can still be granted.
And Ref UK are too lazy to have their homework. This amounts to imposing a massive new bureaucracy (as do the "Patriotic Curriculum" and the others bits), and massive new costs, on both the churches and the Listing Authorities. Who will pay? And will paying more help preserve such worshipping communities? Is he really going to give a listed designation to every clapperboard Gospel Hall and brick built 1920s Methodist church?
Based on the Church of England costs, which has most (70-80% iirc) of the Grade 1 listed buildings in England, being around £150-200m a year for basic maintenance and routine repairs based on a 5-year architectural inspection, before special appeals and excluding cathedrals, I wonder what impact adding another 40k buildings would have? Who will pay - will a RefUK Govt put in £300m to £500m per annum?
Such buildings are continually in change. There was a recent case reported (St Martin's, Brampton) where an intervention from the Victorian Society prevented the installation of an accessible entrance in the preferred way, so some people in the congregation cannot get in for months or 1-2 years more, and further costs will be imposed.
And that's leaving aside that the church does not consist in buildings. It could end up with a French-like situation.
Actually, It could be done by a simple use-class restriction, but Ref UK are the Two Short Planks Party.
Today's Tory outing in case you missed it with all the drug wars stuff.
My children should definitely go to Oxbridge Your children should count themselves lucky to get Bristol Their children should do apprenticeships for boiler making
Stopping funding for creative arts degrees funded by taxpayers and redirecting it to apprenticeships which generally see higher wages is hardly a bad thing. Nothing to stop you paying for a creative arts degree yourself either
I can't remember which party it was - maybe LDems, maybe ScotGreens - but they had a policy that was (to paraphrase) "Ok, you've turned 18 - here's a pot of zero-interest money," With the choices to 'spend it' on a degree, or technical apprenticeship, or starting a business, or... (just not 'blow and hookers').
The Blair government introduced Individual Learning Accounts in 2000, but the policy was dropped in 2001, due to frauds and scams on the "courses" offered.
I’m not sure it’s meaningful to say that 50 years ago the republicans were more favourable to science than the democrats and that has switched today. It’s accurate but misleading.
50 years ago was when the Southern Strategy was just launching. So the voters haven’t changed their position - the parties have switched their voter bases.
Went to see Wuthering Heights this evening, a rather liberal interpretation of the novel but a brooding yet colourful, tense and dramatic performance of it nonetheless at times often quite racy
It contains a scene where Cathy masturbates, so yes you could call it racy.
You're so sex obsessed, you'd think a penis was phallic.
It took out everything that was interesting about the book
Missed the Great Chicken Debate of 2026 but FYI I use kitchen roll. The veg is roasted separately in olive oil and seasoning. Also a great speech by @boulay on why we should love millionaires as apparently they will save local pubs with their spending. You'll be able to spot them in your local with all the Ferraris and Maseratis parked outside.
But a quick thanks to @TSE. The early notice of the odds on the Greens mean I'm now green on G&D barring a late surge by Kemi.
Why shouldn’t a church be converted to a Mosque if there’s no demand for the former in the area but plenty of demand for the latter ?
Prevent seem obsessed with the Far Right, like the lecturer who showed a class a Donald Trump video, this was a class studying US politics. He ended up losing his job and was accused of causing his students ‘emotional harm ‘
As it was set up for Christian worship and if Muslims want a new Mosque they can build one
What is the point of an underutilised/unused building in a mainly Muslim area ? Repurpose it.
Same if former churches are turned into residences or pubs.
It’s just a building. Bricks and mortar.
I like it to be appropriate. Churches turned into nursery schools, nice cafes and craft shops I am happy with. Tattoo parlours no. I just don’t like it. Respect the spirit and heritage of the place.
A Spoons ? Like former banks become ?
A former pub in my town is being turned into a nursery.
There’s an old church in Tynemouth which has been turned into a hub with craft shops and bars called Land of Green Ginger. It’s nice. I like Vineyard 72 for the charcuterie and wine.
You could rent or buy this one. It's been offices for about 30 years. They used to peal the bells in that beautiful bell tower when I was a kid.
Ooh, that’s a great place to work it looks like. My niece helped out at the a local animal sanctuary a few years back
I did a few weeks at the Deer Park in Stoneleigh. The drive in you had to be careful for the little bunnies on the road.
Wythall a part of Brum !! My Mom would have a coronary at the thought.
Birmingham starts at the Maypole across the road from Sainsburys. Maypole Sainsbury's is still in Worcestershire.
Indeed it is, not far from the golf club. I’ve never been in that Sainsburys. When I’m down I prefer the Shirley one.
It was a sad day when Gay Hill Golf Club ( the one I assume to which you allude) was renamed Hollywood Golf Club.
Sainsbury's was a little parade of shops and housing when I lived in Wythall and the former Travelodge opposite Sainsbury's was the Maypole pub, one of Birmingham's famous enormous pubs. It was huge.
Yes, Gay Hill,Golf Club. Knew it well. I remember the Maypole pub too. Most classy it was !!
My dad was a member at Gay Hill. I was a bit too queasy to play there as a teenager. I would play at Fulford Heath or Kings Norton. We could walk across the fields to both from Meadow Road carrying a wood, a seven iron, a putter and a pitching wedge in a light shoulder golf bag and play nine holes without troubling the clubhouses and associated green fees.
Small world. My Dad was a member there too.
I used to play, with work colleagues on Fridays many years back, at Cocks Moor municipal, we’d finish work at 1 in Acocks Green, head over and play 9 or 18 depending on the time of year.
Fantastic days.
He didn't have anything to do with Woodrush Rugby Club did he? If he did he'd have certainly known my Dad.
No, he was more round ball than oval ball or cricket in the summer.
I daresay he was a "Bluenose" from that neck of the woods. Not many Villains at Woodrush School, a couple of Baggies including myself, almost everyone else was either a Nose or a Man Utd fan.
He was indeed a Bluenose, as am I.
KRO.
SOTV
👍
Freddie Goodwin had a house in Earlswood behind Fulford Heath Golf Club. One of my Dad's friends was playing there and saw Howard Kendall in his garden talking to Freddie and they guessed he was signing from Everton days before it made the Evening Mail. Bobby Hope who played for us and you had the Newsagents in May Lane.
Best season ever under Freddie
1971-72
Unbeaten in League from Boxing Day.
Won promotion at Orient away last game of season
Cup run to semi final.
5th round a 16 year old kid 4th choice had to play in goal due to injury, name of Paul Cooper, had a great career at Ipswich.
He touched the ball 3 times in first 15 minutes... We were 3 nil down 52000 sell out
No worry No panic
We had Latchford and Hatton and a wonder kid called Trevor
We won 6 - 3
Goidwin was very under rated manager very nice guy too
I was 11. Happy days
Goodwin was brilliant. I remember seeing him dining in The Plough and the Italian on the Stratford Road that became a fish bar.
We had a terrific side then. Pendrey, Page, Bryant, Big Joe, Roger Hynd.
Twitter often throws up Star Soccer clips from the early seventies, brilliant.
Went to see Wuthering Heights this evening, a rather liberal interpretation of the novel but a brooding yet colourful, tense and dramatic performance of it nonetheless at times often quite racy
It contains a scene where Cathy masturbates, so yes you could call it racy.
Ffs it has to get down and dirty to sell it. Few things are worth watching with that filth in it.
Went to see Wuthering Heights this evening, a rather liberal interpretation of the novel but a brooding yet colourful, tense and dramatic performance of it nonetheless at times often quite racy
It contains a scene where Cathy masturbates, so yes you could call it racy.
Went to see Wuthering Heights this evening, a rather liberal interpretation of the novel but a brooding yet colourful, tense and dramatic performance of it nonetheless at times often quite racy
It contains a scene where Cathy masturbates, so yes you could call it racy.
You're so sex obsessed, you'd think a penis was phallic.
It took out everything that was interesting about the book
Really? How? I've never found annything interesting in it to start with.
1. They think he hasnt got the stomach for a full scale conflict with the casualties & other non human impacts therein, however brief it may be. The US military is prepping for an overwhelming and sustained effort. Sustained means weeks if necessary. This is not Trump's strong point, he wants clean wins movie style, ie done in two hours. The Iranians know this so they are stringing it out on basis that Trump is looking a way out because he knows it could get messy. 2. They have nothing to lose at this point, if Trump has decided to go ahead.
I'd have thought the debate within the Trump Administration would be the size and scope of any attack. IF this is about regime change, fair enough, but what is the regime being changed TO? Reza Pahlavi might seem the answer but does he really have the level of support across the whole country?
There's also the not unreasonable concern of all Iran's neighbours and how they will react. I imagine there will be a lot of diplomatic activity aimed at Pakistan, Iraq, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan as well as Afghanistan.
I think you are over-optimistic.
As far as I can seem, inside the Trump Administation there are only Trump's addled brain, the voices in his head, and a collection of bootlicking nonentities.
1. How patriotic is Christianity, not a British origin religion. Go back to Druidism if they want true British values. Religion should be out of the classroom in all ways, it should be purely personal.
2. If Christians don’t use churches and there is a risk of them falling apart it’s better they are used for whatever purpose, nightclubs, community centres, weather spoons or mosques.
3. Fair enough.
4. Absolutely right, not just expats, anyone who agrees to set up a business in the UK generating x in corporate tax and/or employing a certain number of UK people should be offered big personal tax incentives.
1 Christian values have been the basis of British culture for over a 1000 years.
2 C of E churches are normally grade listed so often restricted in use, they normally also require a deed of variation to be used for non Christian worship but this just enforces that.
Problem is even Christian's do not agree with each other on these so called values
Well they should be based on what is in the Bible, especially the teachings of Christ
And there is your problem
Interpretation of the scriptures varies as does Christ teachings
I believe all gay couples should be married if they wish in a Church
Do you, and if not why ?
No it doesn't, the Ten Commandments are black and white for starters and the teachings of Christ are also pretty clear.
From Leviticus to Paul there is plenty anti same sex sex and while Jesus did not oppose specifically he made clear matrimony was between one man and one woman for life
The Ten Commandments are hardly black and white. The Catholics and some Protestants disagree with the Greek Orthodox and some other Protestants as to what they even are! See https://www.logos.com/grow/list-ten-commandments-debate/
Meanwhile, Jesus says more against divorce than homosexuality, yet somehow more conservative Christians get far more upset about homosexuality than divorce.
The Roman Catholic church forbids divorce except with a strict annulment to say the marriage was never valid in the first place
But it’s Protestants who make the biggest noise in politics about following God’s law… and also get divorced lots.
1. They think he hasnt got the stomach for a full scale conflict with the casualties & other non human impacts therein, however brief it may be. The US military is prepping for an overwhelming and sustained effort. Sustained means weeks if necessary. This is not Trump's strong point, he wants clean wins movie style, ie done in two hours. The Iranians know this so they are stringing it out on basis that Trump is looking a way out because he knows it could get messy. 2. They have nothing to lose at this point, if Trump has decided to go ahead.
I'd have thought the debate within the Trump Administration would be the size and scope of any attack. IF this is about regime change, fair enough, but what is the regime being changed TO? Reza Pahlavi might seem the answer but does he really have the level of support across the whole country?
There's also the not unreasonable concern of all Iran's neighbours and how they will react. I imagine there will be a lot of diplomatic activity aimed at Pakistan, Iraq, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan as well as Afghanistan.
I think you are over-optimistic.
As far as I can seem, inside the Trump Administation there are only Trump's addled brain, the voices in his head, and a collection of bootlicking nonentities.
Where would any debate come from?
The correct way to model the Trump administration is "mad king and scheming courtiers" and there are definitely lots of different factions of scheming courtiers. Rubio is basically an old-school neocon, he loves the invasions but he's also aware of the value of alliances and how different schemes can blow up in your face. There's an America First faction that genuinely wants to do isolationism and not invade random middle-eastern countries. There's a faction that wants to do strongman types of thing with lots of bombing but not get more involved than that. And there are different degrees of Russian puppetry, Iran is one of Russia's most important allies.
I'm not sure how much traction all this "culture wars" nonsense outside the Reform/Restore/Conservative side of the fence.
I live opposite a Church and know the Vicar fairly well. Financially, despite what some would have you believe, she tells me it's a struggle. The Church and especially its hall is booked out by all sorts of groups from maths/english tutors to evangelical Christians. There are Sunday services in English and Tamil for the local Hindu community.
Yet she relies on volunteers to do most of the small scale repairs and mainteance both at the Church and the vicarage.
It's a focal point for the immediate locality and the only Church nearby while the Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus all have their places of worship on the High Street.
As for Yusuf - I think children and young people should be exposed to the basic tenets of a number of faiths and belief systems. I'm not entirely sure what a "patriotic curriculum based on Christianity" means. The Norman Conquest was supported by the Pope and as I recall we broke with the Church of Rome so Henry VIII could re-marry and in WW1, I'm pretty sure while we might have claimed we had God on our side, I'm pretty sure the Germans thought the same.
I'm interested to see how we can undercut Dubai and Singapore in terms of personal taxation given even the post-Brexit Conservatives realised Singapore-on-Thames was a non-starter.
I'll be interested to see how Badenoch and Stride react to Yususf's ideas. Our resident Conservative seems to be more interested in attacking the critiques of others rather than stating his own view - does he have an opinion or is he waiting for Kemi to tell him what to think?
I think I'd comment on the importance of looking beyond media reports or commentary from politicised people, which are nearly always about the people commentating, and the item being reported on is feedstock for the agenda.
The "rich church", "third biggest landowner in the country", and so on, stuff is about that. But the "wealth of the church" (held by the Church Commissioners" consisted until very recently overwhlemingly of the staff pension fund. 25 years ago the CC asset base was 60% for staff pensions (previously 80%), and now it is down to about 20%. That has been achieved by a) Transferring post-1998 pension liabilities to dioceses and b) Excellent investment performance - at a top1% of funds level last time I checked.
So now greater investment is being made in future church development, and I could a pivot to more support for Dioceses with funding. They can now distribute about £250-300m per annum that is not pensions.
Various media and campaign groups get very angry that the established church continues significantly to value, and aspire towards, tolerance of diverse Christian traditions within the church. That is especially among forums on both traditionalist and more inclusive ends. I think those tending towards a modern version of Christian Nationalism (or National Conservatism) are particularly miffed that the church will not do as they demand. There's a problem there with campaigners picking up narrower values than we have here from the Trumpish USA.
Some even tried to frame Justin Welby - a charismatic evangelical out of Holy Trinity Brompton - as a "woke liberal" as he did not embrace the complete set of dogmas required.
Went to see Wuthering Heights this evening, a rather liberal interpretation of the novel but a brooding yet colourful, tense and dramatic performance of it nonetheless at times often quite racy
It contains a scene where Cathy masturbates, so yes you could call it racy.
Ffs it has to get down and dirty to sell it. Few things are worth watching with that filth in it.
Ammonite has Victorian palaentologists Mary Anning and Charlotte Murchison going down on each other, a notion which would have horrified both women in reality, assuming that they had even heard of such a thing.
I'm not sure how much traction all this "culture wars" nonsense outside the Reform/Restore/Conservative side of the fence.
I live opposite a Church and know the Vicar fairly well. Financially, despite what some would have you believe, she tells me it's a struggle. The Church and especially its hall is booked out by all sorts of groups from maths/english tutors to evangelical Christians. There are Sunday services in English and Tamil for the local Hindu community.
Yet she relies on volunteers to do most of the small scale repairs and mainteance both at the Church and the vicarage.
It's a focal point for the immediate locality and the only Church nearby while the Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus all have their places of worship on the High Street.
As for Yusuf - I think children and young people should be exposed to the basic tenets of a number of faiths and belief systems. I'm not entirely sure what a "patriotic curriculum based on Christianity" means. The Norman Conquest was supported by the Pope and as I recall we broke with the Church of Rome so Henry VIII could re-marry and in WW1, I'm pretty sure while we might have claimed we had God on our side, I'm pretty sure the Germans thought the same.
I'm interested to see how we can undercut Dubai and Singapore in terms of personal taxation given even the post-Brexit Conservatives realised Singapore-on-Thames was a non-starter.
I'll be interested to see how Badenoch and Stride react to Yususf's ideas. Our resident Conservative seems to be more interested in attacking the critiques of others rather than stating his own view - does he have an opinion or is he waiting for Kemi to tell him what to think?
I think I'd comment on the importance of looking beyond media reports or commentary from politicised people, which are nearly always about the people commentating, and the item being reported on is feedstock for the agenda.
The "rich church", "third biggest landowner in the country", and so on, stuff is about that. But the "wealth of the church" (held by the Church Commissioners" consisted until very recently overwhlemingly of the staff pension fund. 25 years ago the CC asset base was 60% for staff pensions (previously 80%), and now it is down to about 20%. That has been achieved by a) Transferring post-1998 pension liabilities to dioceses and b) Excellent investment performance - at a top1% of funds level last time I checked.
So now greater investment is being made in future church development, and I could a pivot to more support for Dioceses with funding. They can now distribute about £250-300m per annum that is not pensions.
Various media and campaign groups get very angry that the established church continues significantly to value, and aspire towards, tolerance of diverse Christian traditions within the church. That is especially among forums on both traditionalist and more inclusive ends. I think those tending towards a modern version of Christian Nationalism (or National Conservatism) are particularly miffed that the church will not do as they demand. There's a problem there with campaigners picking up narrower values than we have here from the Trumpish USA.
Some even tried to frame Justin Welby - a charismatic evangelical out of Holy Trinity Brompton - as a "woke liberal" as he did not embrace the complete set of dogmas required.
I hold £200,000 on trust for a parish church. Any suggestions for investment would be welcome.
Went to see Wuthering Heights this evening, a rather liberal interpretation of the novel but a brooding yet colourful, tense and dramatic performance of it nonetheless at times often quite racy
It contains a scene where Cathy masturbates, so yes you could call it racy.
Ffs it has to get down and dirty to sell it. Few things are worth watching with that filth in it.
Ammonite has Victorian palaentologists Mary Anning and Charlotte Murchison going down on each other, a notion which would have horrified both women in reality, assuming that they had even heard of such a thing.
What is this Ammonite ? I need to watch it. I’ve always been interested in Palaentology.
I'm not sure how much traction all this "culture wars" nonsense outside the Reform/Restore/Conservative side of the fence.
I live opposite a Church and know the Vicar fairly well. Financially, despite what some would have you believe, she tells me it's a struggle. The Church and especially its hall is booked out by all sorts of groups from maths/english tutors to evangelical Christians. There are Sunday services in English and Tamil for the local Hindu community.
Yet she relies on volunteers to do most of the small scale repairs and mainteance both at the Church and the vicarage.
It's a focal point for the immediate locality and the only Church nearby while the Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus all have their places of worship on the High Street.
As for Yusuf - I think children and young people should be exposed to the basic tenets of a number of faiths and belief systems. I'm not entirely sure what a "patriotic curriculum based on Christianity" means. The Norman Conquest was supported by the Pope and as I recall we broke with the Church of Rome so Henry VIII could re-marry and in WW1, I'm pretty sure while we might have claimed we had God on our side, I'm pretty sure the Germans thought the same.
I'm interested to see how we can undercut Dubai and Singapore in terms of personal taxation given even the post-Brexit Conservatives realised Singapore-on-Thames was a non-starter.
I'll be interested to see how Badenoch and Stride react to Yususf's ideas. Our resident Conservative seems to be more interested in attacking the critiques of others rather than stating his own view - does he have an opinion or is he waiting for Kemi to tell him what to think?
I think I'd comment on the importance of looking beyond media reports or commentary from politicised people, which are nearly always about the people commentating, and the item being reported on is feedstock for the agenda.
The "rich church", "third biggest landowner in the country", and so on, stuff is about that. But the "wealth of the church" (held by the Church Commissioners" consisted until very recently overwhlemingly of the staff pension fund. 25 years ago the CC asset base was 60% for staff pensions (previously 80%), and now it is down to about 20%. That has been achieved by a) Transferring post-1998 pension liabilities to dioceses and b) Excellent investment performance - at a top1% of funds level last time I checked.
So now greater investment is being made in future church development, and I could a pivot to more support for Dioceses with funding. They can now distribute about £250-300m per annum that is not pensions.
Various media and campaign groups get very angry that the established church continues significantly to value, and aspire towards, tolerance of diverse Christian traditions within the church. That is especially among forums on both traditionalist and more inclusive ends. I think those tending towards a modern version of Christian Nationalism (or National Conservatism) are particularly miffed that the church will not do as they demand. There's a problem there with campaigners picking up narrower values than we have here from the Trumpish USA.
Some even tried to frame Justin Welby - a charismatic evangelical out of Holy Trinity Brompton - as a "woke liberal" as he did not embrace the complete set of dogmas required.
I hold £200,000 on trust for a parish church. Any suggestions for investment would be welcome.
How quickly would you need to access it ? How long would you be willing to tie it up for ?
Went to see Wuthering Heights this evening, a rather liberal interpretation of the novel but a brooding yet colourful, tense and dramatic performance of it nonetheless at times often quite racy
It contains a scene where Cathy masturbates, so yes you could call it racy.
You're so sex obsessed, you'd think a penis was phallic.
It took out everything that was interesting about the book
Really? How? I've never found annything interesting in it to start with.
Isn't it one of the great Victorian Gothic novels, with themes of class, race, toxic love, coercive control, narcisstic personality disorder and familial abuse?
As for Yusuf - I think children and young people should be exposed to the basic tenets of a number of faiths and belief systems. I'm not entirely sure what a "patriotic curriculum based on Christianity" means. The Norman Conquest was supported by the Pope and as I recall we broke with the Church of Rome so Henry VIII could re-marry and in WW1, I'm pretty sure while we might have claimed we had God on our side, I'm pretty sure the Germans thought the same.
I'd comment on two further aspects, if I may.
I suspect that Yusuf does not have a clue what a patriotic curriculum is, either. Neither do I. Trying to hang it all on one of either religion or secularism is silly - both are unbalanced narratives. I'm inclined to values of critical enquiry and tolerance, with "find out first" as a practice.
As an example, the first call for Freedom of Conscience for atheists in this country, as far as I am aware, was a nonconformist Minister (views that were discriminated against) writing in 1610.
On "God on our side", it's easy to say. A Wehrmacht buckle from WW2, with German Eagle and Swastika:
As for Yusuf - I think children and young people should be exposed to the basic tenets of a number of faiths and belief systems. I'm not entirely sure what a "patriotic curriculum based on Christianity" means. The Norman Conquest was supported by the Pope and as I recall we broke with the Church of Rome so Henry VIII could re-marry and in WW1, I'm pretty sure while we might have claimed we had God on our side, I'm pretty sure the Germans thought the same.
I'd comment on two further aspects, if I may.
I suspect that Yusuf does not have a clue what a patriotic curriculum is, either. Neither do I. Trying to hang it all on one of either religion or secularism is silly - both are unbalanced narratives. I'm inclined to values of critical enquiry and tolerance.
As an example, the first call for Freedom of Conscience for atheists in this country, as far as I am aware, was a nonconformist Minister (views that were discriminated against) writing in 1610.
On "God on our side", it's easy to say. A Wehrmacht buckle from WW2, with German Eagle and Swastika:
Strong ‘Everyone I disagree with is Hitler’ energy here.
Why shouldn’t a church be converted to a Mosque if there’s no demand for the former in the area but plenty of demand for the latter ?
Prevent seem obsessed with the Far Right, like the lecturer who showed a class a Donald Trump video, this was a class studying US politics. He ended up losing his job and was accused of causing his students ‘emotional harm ‘
As it was set up for Christian worship and if Muslims want a new Mosque they can build one
What is the point of an underutilised/unused building in a mainly Muslim area ? Repurpose it.
Same if former churches are turned into residences or pubs.
It’s just a building. Bricks and mortar.
I like it to be appropriate. Churches turned into nursery schools, nice cafes and craft shops I am happy with. Tattoo parlours no. I just don’t like it. Respect the spirit and heritage of the place.
A Spoons ? Like former banks become ?
A former pub in my town is being turned into a nursery.
There’s an old church in Tynemouth which has been turned into a hub with craft shops and bars called Land of Green Ginger. It’s nice. I like Vineyard 72 for the charcuterie and wine.
You could rent or buy this one. It's been offices for about 30 years. They used to peal the bells in that beautiful bell tower when I was a kid.
Ooh, that’s a great place to work it looks like. My niece helped out at the a local animal sanctuary a few years back
I did a few weeks at the Deer Park in Stoneleigh. The drive in you had to be careful for the little bunnies on the road.
Wythall a part of Brum !! My Mom would have a coronary at the thought.
Birmingham starts at the Maypole across the road from Sainsburys. Maypole Sainsbury's is still in Worcestershire.
Indeed it is, not far from the golf club. I’ve never been in that Sainsburys. When I’m down I prefer the Shirley one.
It was a sad day when Gay Hill Golf Club ( the one I assume to which you allude) was renamed Hollywood Golf Club.
Sainsbury's was a little parade of shops and housing when I lived in Wythall and the former Travelodge opposite Sainsbury's was the Maypole pub, one of Birmingham's famous enormous pubs. It was huge.
Yes, Gay Hill,Golf Club. Knew it well. I remember the Maypole pub too. Most classy it was !!
My dad was a member at Gay Hill. I was a bit too queasy to play there as a teenager. I would play at Fulford Heath or Kings Norton. We could walk across the fields to both from Meadow Road carrying a wood, a seven iron, a putter and a pitching wedge in a light shoulder golf bag and play nine holes without troubling the clubhouses and associated green fees.
Small world. My Dad was a member there too.
I used to play, with work colleagues on Fridays many years back, at Cocks Moor municipal, we’d finish work at 1 in Acocks Green, head over and play 9 or 18 depending on the time of year.
Fantastic days.
He didn't have anything to do with Woodrush Rugby Club did he? If he did he'd have certainly known my Dad.
No, he was more round ball than oval ball or cricket in the summer.
I daresay he was a "Bluenose" from that neck of the woods. Not many Villains at Woodrush School, a couple of Baggies including myself, almost everyone else was either a Nose or a Man Utd fan.
He was indeed a Bluenose, as am I.
KRO.
SOTV
👍
Freddie Goodwin had a house in Earlswood behind Fulford Heath Golf Club. One of my Dad's friends was playing there and saw Howard Kendall in his garden talking to Freddie and they guessed he was signing from Everton days before it made the Evening Mail. Bobby Hope who played for us and you had the Newsagents in May Lane.
Best season ever under Freddie
1971-72
Unbeaten in League from Boxing Day.
Won promotion at Orient away last game of season
Cup run to semi final.
5th round a 16 year old kid 4th choice had to play in goal due to injury, name of Paul Cooper, had a great career at Ipswich.
He touched the ball 3 times in first 15 minutes... We were 3 nil down 52000 sell out
No worry No panic
We had Latchford and Hatton and a wonder kid called Trevor
We won 6 - 3
Goidwin was very under rated manager very nice guy too
I was 11. Happy days
Goodwin was brilliant. I remember seeing him dining in The Plough and the Italian on the Stratford Road that became a fish bar.
We had a terrific side then. Pendrey, Page, Bryant, Big Joe, Roger Hynd.
Twitter often throws up Star Soccer clips from the early seventies, brilliant.
Hugh Johns at his peak!
Not forgetting a chunky little winger Gordon Taylor, who had a penchant for smashing home 30 yarders. (He didn't do too badly for himself in the game after retiring lol).
The era of Jolly Jack Wiseman and the Coombes family, one of the Coombes sons became an MP I think. You could hear Keep Right On as you walked past the old Cop Shop in Digbeth on the way to Adderley Street.
Went to see Wuthering Heights this evening, a rather liberal interpretation of the novel but a brooding yet colourful, tense and dramatic performance of it nonetheless at times often quite racy
It contains a scene where Cathy masturbates, so yes you could call it racy.
Ffs it has to get down and dirty to sell it. Few things are worth watching with that filth in it.
Ammonite has Victorian palaentologists Mary Anning and Charlotte Murchison going down on each other, a notion which would have horrified both women in reality, assuming that they had even heard of such a thing.
What is this Ammonite ? I need to watch it. I’ve always been interested in Palaentology.
It’s a purely gratuitous piece of lesbian porn, added in to spice up a period drama.
Went to see Wuthering Heights this evening, a rather liberal interpretation of the novel but a brooding yet colourful, tense and dramatic performance of it nonetheless at times often quite racy
It contains a scene where Cathy masturbates, so yes you could call it racy.
Ffs it has to get down and dirty to sell it. Few things are worth watching with that filth in it.
Ammonite has Victorian palaentologists Mary Anning and Charlotte Murchison going down on each other, a notion which would have horrified both women in reality, assuming that they had even heard of such a thing.
What is this Ammonite ? I need to watch it. I’ve always been interested in Palaentology.
I'm not sure how much traction all this "culture wars" nonsense outside the Reform/Restore/Conservative side of the fence.
I live opposite a Church and know the Vicar fairly well. Financially, despite what some would have you believe, she tells me it's a struggle. The Church and especially its hall is booked out by all sorts of groups from maths/english tutors to evangelical Christians. There are Sunday services in English and Tamil for the local Hindu community.
Yet she relies on volunteers to do most of the small scale repairs and mainteance both at the Church and the vicarage.
It's a focal point for the immediate locality and the only Church nearby while the Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus all have their places of worship on the High Street.
As for Yusuf - I think children and young people should be exposed to the basic tenets of a number of faiths and belief systems. I'm not entirely sure what a "patriotic curriculum based on Christianity" means. The Norman Conquest was supported by the Pope and as I recall we broke with the Church of Rome so Henry VIII could re-marry and in WW1, I'm pretty sure while we might have claimed we had God on our side, I'm pretty sure the Germans thought the same.
I'm interested to see how we can undercut Dubai and Singapore in terms of personal taxation given even the post-Brexit Conservatives realised Singapore-on-Thames was a non-starter.
I'll be interested to see how Badenoch and Stride react to Yususf's ideas. Our resident Conservative seems to be more interested in attacking the critiques of others rather than stating his own view - does he have an opinion or is he waiting for Kemi to tell him what to think?
I think I'd comment on the importance of looking beyond media reports or commentary from politicised people, which are nearly always about the people commentating, and the item being reported on is feedstock for the agenda.
The "rich church", "third biggest landowner in the country", and so on, stuff is about that. But the "wealth of the church" (held by the Church Commissioners" consisted until very recently overwhlemingly of the staff pension fund. 25 years ago the CC asset base was 60% for staff pensions (previously 80%), and now it is down to about 20%. That has been achieved by a) Transferring post-1998 pension liabilities to dioceses and b) Excellent investment performance - at a top1% of funds level last time I checked.
So now greater investment is being made in future church development, and I could a pivot to more support for Dioceses with funding. They can now distribute about £250-300m per annum that is not pensions.
Various media and campaign groups get very angry that the established church continues significantly to value, and aspire towards, tolerance of diverse Christian traditions within the church. That is especially among forums on both traditionalist and more inclusive ends. I think those tending towards a modern version of Christian Nationalism (or National Conservatism) are particularly miffed that the church will not do as they demand. There's a problem there with campaigners picking up narrower values than we have here from the Trumpish USA.
Some even tried to frame Justin Welby - a charismatic evangelical out of Holy Trinity Brompton - as a "woke liberal" as he did not embrace the complete set of dogmas required.
I hold £200,000 on trust for a parish church. Any suggestions for investment would be welcome.
How quickly would you need to access it ? How long would you be willing to tie it up for ?
What is your risk profile ?
I’m paying it over eight annual instalments. I want to minimise risk, but I want something better than the meagre rate of interest that my firm’s bank pays.
I'm not sure how much traction all this "culture wars" nonsense outside the Reform/Restore/Conservative side of the fence.
I live opposite a Church and know the Vicar fairly well. Financially, despite what some would have you believe, she tells me it's a struggle. The Church and especially its hall is booked out by all sorts of groups from maths/english tutors to evangelical Christians. There are Sunday services in English and Tamil for the local Hindu community.
Yet she relies on volunteers to do most of the small scale repairs and mainteance both at the Church and the vicarage.
It's a focal point for the immediate locality and the only Church nearby while the Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus all have their places of worship on the High Street.
As for Yusuf - I think children and young people should be exposed to the basic tenets of a number of faiths and belief systems. I'm not entirely sure what a "patriotic curriculum based on Christianity" means. The Norman Conquest was supported by the Pope and as I recall we broke with the Church of Rome so Henry VIII could re-marry and in WW1, I'm pretty sure while we might have claimed we had God on our side, I'm pretty sure the Germans thought the same.
I'm interested to see how we can undercut Dubai and Singapore in terms of personal taxation given even the post-Brexit Conservatives realised Singapore-on-Thames was a non-starter.
I'll be interested to see how Badenoch and Stride react to Yususf's ideas. Our resident Conservative seems to be more interested in attacking the critiques of others rather than stating his own view - does he have an opinion or is he waiting for Kemi to tell him what to think?
I think I'd comment on the importance of looking beyond media reports or commentary from politicised people, which are nearly always about the people commentating, and the item being reported on is feedstock for the agenda.
The "rich church", "third biggest landowner in the country", and so on, stuff is about that. But the "wealth of the church" (held by the Church Commissioners" consisted until very recently overwhlemingly of the staff pension fund. 25 years ago the CC asset base was 60% for staff pensions (previously 80%), and now it is down to about 20%. That has been achieved by a) Transferring post-1998 pension liabilities to dioceses and b) Excellent investment performance - at a top1% of funds level last time I checked.
So now greater investment is being made in future church development, and I could a pivot to more support for Dioceses with funding. They can now distribute about £250-300m per annum that is not pensions.
Various media and campaign groups get very angry that the established church continues significantly to value, and aspire towards, tolerance of diverse Christian traditions within the church. That is especially among forums on both traditionalist and more inclusive ends. I think those tending towards a modern version of Christian Nationalism (or National Conservatism) are particularly miffed that the church will not do as they demand. There's a problem there with campaigners picking up narrower values than we have here from the Trumpish USA.
Some even tried to frame Justin Welby - a charismatic evangelical out of Holy Trinity Brompton - as a "woke liberal" as he did not embrace the complete set of dogmas required.
I hold £200,000 on trust for a parish church. Any suggestions for investment would be welcome.
How quickly would you need to access it ? How long would you be willing to tie it up for ?
What is your risk profile ?
I’m paying it over eight annual instalments. I want to minimise risk, but I want something better than the meagre rate of interest that my firm’s bank pays.
Went to see Wuthering Heights this evening, a rather liberal interpretation of the novel but a brooding yet colourful, tense and dramatic performance of it nonetheless at times often quite racy
It contains a scene where Cathy masturbates, so yes you could call it racy.
Ffs it has to get down and dirty to sell it. Few things are worth watching with that filth in it.
Ammonite has Victorian palaentologists Mary Anning and Charlotte Murchison going down on each other, a notion which would have horrified both women in reality, assuming that they had even heard of such a thing.
What is this Ammonite ? I need to watch it. I’ve always been interested in Palaentology.
I'm not sure how much traction all this "culture wars" nonsense outside the Reform/Restore/Conservative side of the fence.
I live opposite a Church and know the Vicar fairly well. Financially, despite what some would have you believe, she tells me it's a struggle. The Church and especially its hall is booked out by all sorts of groups from maths/english tutors to evangelical Christians. There are Sunday services in English and Tamil for the local Hindu community.
Yet she relies on volunteers to do most of the small scale repairs and mainteance both at the Church and the vicarage.
It's a focal point for the immediate locality and the only Church nearby while the Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus all have their places of worship on the High Street.
As for Yusuf - I think children and young people should be exposed to the basic tenets of a number of faiths and belief systems. I'm not entirely sure what a "patriotic curriculum based on Christianity" means. The Norman Conquest was supported by the Pope and as I recall we broke with the Church of Rome so Henry VIII could re-marry and in WW1, I'm pretty sure while we might have claimed we had God on our side, I'm pretty sure the Germans thought the same.
I'm interested to see how we can undercut Dubai and Singapore in terms of personal taxation given even the post-Brexit Conservatives realised Singapore-on-Thames was a non-starter.
I'll be interested to see how Badenoch and Stride react to Yususf's ideas. Our resident Conservative seems to be more interested in attacking the critiques of others rather than stating his own view - does he have an opinion or is he waiting for Kemi to tell him what to think?
I think I'd comment on the importance of looking beyond media reports or commentary from politicised people, which are nearly always about the people commentating, and the item being reported on is feedstock for the agenda.
The "rich church", "third biggest landowner in the country", and so on, stuff is about that. But the "wealth of the church" (held by the Church Commissioners" consisted until very recently overwhlemingly of the staff pension fund. 25 years ago the CC asset base was 60% for staff pensions (previously 80%), and now it is down to about 20%. That has been achieved by a) Transferring post-1998 pension liabilities to dioceses and b) Excellent investment performance - at a top1% of funds level last time I checked.
So now greater investment is being made in future church development, and I could a pivot to more support for Dioceses with funding. They can now distribute about £250-300m per annum that is not pensions.
Various media and campaign groups get very angry that the established church continues significantly to value, and aspire towards, tolerance of diverse Christian traditions within the church. That is especially among forums on both traditionalist and more inclusive ends. I think those tending towards a modern version of Christian Nationalism (or National Conservatism) are particularly miffed that the church will not do as they demand. There's a problem there with campaigners picking up narrower values than we have here from the Trumpish USA.
Some even tried to frame Justin Welby - a charismatic evangelical out of Holy Trinity Brompton - as a "woke liberal" as he did not embrace the complete set of dogmas required.
I hold £200,000 on trust for a parish church. Any suggestions for investment would be welcome.
How quickly would you need to access it ? How long would you be willing to tie it up for ?
What is your risk profile ?
I’m paying it over eight annual instalments. I want to minimise risk, but I want something better than the meagre rate of interest that my firm’s bank pays.
Went to see Wuthering Heights this evening, a rather liberal interpretation of the novel but a brooding yet colourful, tense and dramatic performance of it nonetheless at times often quite racy
It contains a scene where Cathy masturbates, so yes you could call it racy.
Ffs it has to get down and dirty to sell it. Few things are worth watching with that filth in it.
Ammonite has Victorian palaentologists Mary Anning and Charlotte Murchison going down on each other, a notion which would have horrified both women in reality, assuming that they had even heard of such a thing.
What is this Ammonite ? I need to watch it. I’ve always been interested in Palaentology.
Went to see Wuthering Heights this evening, a rather liberal interpretation of the novel but a brooding yet colourful, tense and dramatic performance of it nonetheless at times often quite racy
It contains a scene where Cathy masturbates, so yes you could call it racy.
Ffs it has to get down and dirty to sell it. Few things are worth watching with that filth in it.
Ammonite has Victorian palaentologists Mary Anning and Charlotte Murchison going down on each other, a notion which would have horrified both women in reality, assuming that they had even heard of such a thing.
Having porn scenes in mainstream films is as pointless as having plots in pornos.
As for Yusuf - I think children and young people should be exposed to the basic tenets of a number of faiths and belief systems. I'm not entirely sure what a "patriotic curriculum based on Christianity" means. The Norman Conquest was supported by the Pope and as I recall we broke with the Church of Rome so Henry VIII could re-marry and in WW1, I'm pretty sure while we might have claimed we had God on our side, I'm pretty sure the Germans thought the same.
I'd comment on two further aspects, if I may.
I suspect that Yusuf does not have a clue what a patriotic curriculum is, either. Neither do I. Trying to hang it all on one of either religion or secularism is silly - both are unbalanced narratives. I'm inclined to values of critical enquiry and tolerance.
As an example, the first call for Freedom of Conscience for atheists in this country, as far as I am aware, was a nonconformist Minister (views that were discriminated against) writing in 1610.
On "God on our side", it's easy to say. A Wehrmacht buckle from WW2, with German Eagle and Swastika:
Strong ‘Everyone I disagree with is Hitler’ energy here.
Gott mit Uns predates Hitler by quite a margin- it was the national motto of Prussia.
Went to see Wuthering Heights this evening, a rather liberal interpretation of the novel but a brooding yet colourful, tense and dramatic performance of it nonetheless at times often quite racy
It contains a scene where Cathy masturbates, so yes you could call it racy.
You're so sex obsessed, you'd think a penis was phallic.
It took out everything that was interesting about the book
Really? How? I've never found annything interesting in it to start with.
Isn't it one of the great Victorian Gothic novels, with themes of class, race, toxic love, coercive control, narcisstic personality disorder and familial abuse?
Went to see Wuthering Heights this evening, a rather liberal interpretation of the novel but a brooding yet colourful, tense and dramatic performance of it nonetheless at times often quite racy
It contains a scene where Cathy masturbates, so yes you could call it racy.
Ffs it has to get down and dirty to sell it. Few things are worth watching with that filth in it.
Ammonite has Victorian palaentologists Mary Anning and Charlotte Murchison going down on each other, a notion which would have horrified both women in reality, assuming that they had even heard of such a thing.
Having porn scenes in mainstream films is as pointless as having plots in pornos.
It’s not quite as bad as the Anne of Cleves/Katherine Howard sex scene, in Vengeance Is Mine by Brandy Purdy.
As for Yusuf - I think children and young people should be exposed to the basic tenets of a number of faiths and belief systems. I'm not entirely sure what a "patriotic curriculum based on Christianity" means. The Norman Conquest was supported by the Pope and as I recall we broke with the Church of Rome so Henry VIII could re-marry and in WW1, I'm pretty sure while we might have claimed we had God on our side, I'm pretty sure the Germans thought the same.
I'd comment on two further aspects, if I may.
I suspect that Yusuf does not have a clue what a patriotic curriculum is, either. Neither do I. Trying to hang it all on one of either religion or secularism is silly - both are unbalanced narratives. I'm inclined to values of critical enquiry and tolerance.
As an example, the first call for Freedom of Conscience for atheists in this country, as far as I am aware, was a nonconformist Minister (views that were discriminated against) writing in 1610.
On "God on our side", it's easy to say. A Wehrmacht buckle from WW2, with German Eagle and Swastika:
Strong ‘Everyone I disagree with is Hitler’ energy here.
Not from me. It's more about the importance of thinking carefully first. The buckle is illustrating how easy it is to misuse symbols at a superficial level.
I don't know what Zia means, so it's difficult to disagree. My view is that it is just signalling. If he would explain what "patriotic" means, I'll be gad to evaluate it.
I think the single most important point is that our current style of politics needs a swivel from disengagement to dialogue.
I'm not sure how much traction all this "culture wars" nonsense outside the Reform/Restore/Conservative side of the fence.
I live opposite a Church and know the Vicar fairly well. Financially, despite what some would have you believe, she tells me it's a struggle. The Church and especially its hall is booked out by all sorts of groups from maths/english tutors to evangelical Christians. There are Sunday services in English and Tamil for the local Hindu community.
Yet she relies on volunteers to do most of the small scale repairs and mainteance both at the Church and the vicarage.
It's a focal point for the immediate locality and the only Church nearby while the Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus all have their places of worship on the High Street.
As for Yusuf - I think children and young people should be exposed to the basic tenets of a number of faiths and belief systems. I'm not entirely sure what a "patriotic curriculum based on Christianity" means. The Norman Conquest was supported by the Pope and as I recall we broke with the Church of Rome so Henry VIII could re-marry and in WW1, I'm pretty sure while we might have claimed we had God on our side, I'm pretty sure the Germans thought the same.
I'm interested to see how we can undercut Dubai and Singapore in terms of personal taxation given even the post-Brexit Conservatives realised Singapore-on-Thames was a non-starter.
I'll be interested to see how Badenoch and Stride react to Yususf's ideas. Our resident Conservative seems to be more interested in attacking the critiques of others rather than stating his own view - does he have an opinion or is he waiting for Kemi to tell him what to think?
I think I'd comment on the importance of looking beyond media reports or commentary from politicised people, which are nearly always about the people commentating, and the item being reported on is feedstock for the agenda.
The "rich church", "third biggest landowner in the country", and so on, stuff is about that. But the "wealth of the church" (held by the Church Commissioners" consisted until very recently overwhlemingly of the staff pension fund. 25 years ago the CC asset base was 60% for staff pensions (previously 80%), and now it is down to about 20%. That has been achieved by a) Transferring post-1998 pension liabilities to dioceses and b) Excellent investment performance - at a top1% of funds level last time I checked.
So now greater investment is being made in future church development, and I could a pivot to more support for Dioceses with funding. They can now distribute about £250-300m per annum that is not pensions.
Various media and campaign groups get very angry that the established church continues significantly to value, and aspire towards, tolerance of diverse Christian traditions within the church. That is especially among forums on both traditionalist and more inclusive ends. I think those tending towards a modern version of Christian Nationalism (or National Conservatism) are particularly miffed that the church will not do as they demand. There's a problem there with campaigners picking up narrower values than we have here from the Trumpish USA.
Some even tried to frame Justin Welby - a charismatic evangelical out of Holy Trinity Brompton - as a "woke liberal" as he did not embrace the complete set of dogmas required.
I hold £200,000 on trust for a parish church. Any suggestions for investment would be welcome.
How quickly would you need to access it ? How long would you be willing to tie it up for ?
What is your risk profile ?
I’m paying it over eight annual instalments. I want to minimise risk, but I want something better than the meagre rate of interest that my firm’s bank pays.
What rate are they paying ?
1.3%
Are you able to invest in money market funds?
I'm no expert on trust investing, but if there's a way to access they are generally 1) lower risk than holding money with a bank above the FSCS guarantee, 2) pay interest similar to that BoE's base rate (gross, but fees should be modest). So probably north of 3% net at the moment.
I’m not sure it’s meaningful to say that 50 years ago the republicans were more favourable to science than the democrats and that has switched today. It’s accurate but misleading.
50 years ago was when the Southern Strategy was just launching. So the voters haven’t changed their position - the parties have switched their voter bases.
It terms of government, both parties have been daily pro science at least since WWII.
Trump's administration is perhaps the first so comprehensively to pander to the anti-science tendency on a widespread and comprehensive basis.
Went to see Wuthering Heights this evening, a rather liberal interpretation of the novel but a brooding yet colourful, tense and dramatic performance of it nonetheless at times often quite racy
It contains a scene where Cathy masturbates, so yes you could call it racy.
You're so sex obsessed, you'd think a penis was phallic.
It took out everything that was interesting about the book
Really? How? I've never found annything interesting in it to start with.
1. They think he hasnt got the stomach for a full scale conflict with the casualties & other non human impacts therein, however brief it may be. The US military is prepping for an overwhelming and sustained effort. Sustained means weeks if necessary. This is not Trump's strong point, he wants clean wins movie style, ie done in two hours. The Iranians know this so they are stringing it out on basis that Trump is looking a way out because he knows it could get messy. 2. They have nothing to lose at this point, if Trump has decided to go ahead.
I'd have thought the debate within the Trump Administration would be the size and scope of any attack. IF this is about regime change, fair enough, but what is the regime being changed TO? Reza Pahlavi might seem the answer but does he really have the level of support across the whole country?
There's also the not unreasonable concern of all Iran's neighbours and how they will react. I imagine there will be a lot of diplomatic activity aimed at Pakistan, Iraq, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan as well as Afghanistan.
I think you are over-optimistic.
As far as I can seem, inside the Trump Administation there are only Trump's addled brain, the voices in his head, and a collection of bootlicking nonentities.
Where would any debate come from?
Between the individuals of various degrees of toxicity who on occasion have his ear. Miller v Rubio, for example.
Went to see Wuthering Heights this evening, a rather liberal interpretation of the novel but a brooding yet colourful, tense and dramatic performance of it nonetheless at times often quite racy
I'm not sure how much traction all this "culture wars" nonsense outside the Reform/Restore/Conservative side of the fence.
I live opposite a Church and know the Vicar fairly well. Financially, despite what some would have you believe, she tells me it's a struggle. The Church and especially its hall is booked out by all sorts of groups from maths/english tutors to evangelical Christians. There are Sunday services in English and Tamil for the local Hindu community.
Yet she relies on volunteers to do most of the small scale repairs and mainteance both at the Church and the vicarage.
It's a focal point for the immediate locality and the only Church nearby while the Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus all have their places of worship on the High Street.
As for Yusuf - I think children and young people should be exposed to the basic tenets of a number of faiths and belief systems. I'm not entirely sure what a "patriotic curriculum based on Christianity" means. The Norman Conquest was supported by the Pope and as I recall we broke with the Church of Rome so Henry VIII could re-marry and in WW1, I'm pretty sure while we might have claimed we had God on our side, I'm pretty sure the Germans thought the same.
I'm interested to see how we can undercut Dubai and Singapore in terms of personal taxation given even the post-Brexit Conservatives realised Singapore-on-Thames was a non-starter.
I'll be interested to see how Badenoch and Stride react to Yususf's ideas. Our resident Conservative seems to be more interested in attacking the critiques of others rather than stating his own view - does he have an opinion or is he waiting for Kemi to tell him what to think?
I think I'd comment on the importance of looking beyond media reports or commentary from politicised people, which are nearly always about the people commentating, and the item being reported on is feedstock for the agenda.
The "rich church", "third biggest landowner in the country", and so on, stuff is about that. But the "wealth of the church" (held by the Church Commissioners" consisted until very recently overwhlemingly of the staff pension fund. 25 years ago the CC asset base was 60% for staff pensions (previously 80%), and now it is down to about 20%. That has been achieved by a) Transferring post-1998 pension liabilities to dioceses and b) Excellent investment performance - at a top1% of funds level last time I checked.
So now greater investment is being made in future church development, and I could a pivot to more support for Dioceses with funding. They can now distribute about £250-300m per annum that is not pensions.
Various media and campaign groups get very angry that the established church continues significantly to value, and aspire towards, tolerance of diverse Christian traditions within the church. That is especially among forums on both traditionalist and more inclusive ends. I think those tending towards a modern version of Christian Nationalism (or National Conservatism) are particularly miffed that the church will not do as they demand. There's a problem there with campaigners picking up narrower values than we have here from the Trumpish USA.
Some even tried to frame Justin Welby - a charismatic evangelical out of Holy Trinity Brompton - as a "woke liberal" as he did not embrace the complete set of dogmas required.
I hold £200,000 on trust for a parish church. Any suggestions for investment would be welcome.
How quickly would you need to access it ? How long would you be willing to tie it up for ?
What is your risk profile ?
I’m paying it over eight annual instalments. I want to minimise risk, but I want something better than the meagre rate of interest that my firm’s bank pays.
What rate are they paying ?
1.3%
Hmmm. I've long thought that someone like the Church Commissioners could offer an "invest via us" service; their average return is about 10% per annum over the long run.
The church of England Pensions Board afaics achieve about 8%.
Aside from normal investment routes (which I think you perhaps know more about than me), which would be whatever they are, in the church world are:
1 - Ask the DBF (Diocesan Board of Finance) who they would consider. 2 - The Church Commissioners have issued bonds in recent years (which I did not know about until this morning) with grades of AAA or AA1 and a return of % to 5%. The Nov 2025 one at 5.25% maturing in 2035 looks interesting, but I have no idea if these are even traded. 3 - There is a thing called CCLA Investments which is an investment manager used by parishes for funds, who offer various things including short term and longer term investments. https://www.ccla.co.uk/
I'm not sure if these offer any advantages eg for being able to transfer over more easily when the time comes, but they are out there.
Went to see Wuthering Heights this evening, a rather liberal interpretation of the novel but a brooding yet colourful, tense and dramatic performance of it nonetheless at times often quite racy
Sounds good, raciness in film seemed to virtually disappear for a couple of decades unless that was entirely the point, anything remotely sexual is hard to get a pass from the censors even as they get more accepting of violence and language. Whereas racy smut seems to abount in literature.
Yes when you have a shit script you have to throw in lots of bare arses etc to try and pretend it is arty. Where you been these lost decades, there are no films without it nowadays and it is just thrown in to fill the gaps in the shit scripts.
I'm not sure how much traction all this "culture wars" nonsense outside the Reform/Restore/Conservative side of the fence.
I live opposite a Church and know the Vicar fairly well. Financially, despite what some would have you believe, she tells me it's a struggle. The Church and especially its hall is booked out by all sorts of groups from maths/english tutors to evangelical Christians. There are Sunday services in English and Tamil for the local Hindu community.
Yet she relies on volunteers to do most of the small scale repairs and mainteance both at the Church and the vicarage.
It's a focal point for the immediate locality and the only Church nearby while the Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus all have their places of worship on the High Street.
As for Yusuf - I think children and young people should be exposed to the basic tenets of a number of faiths and belief systems. I'm not entirely sure what a "patriotic curriculum based on Christianity" means. The Norman Conquest was supported by the Pope and as I recall we broke with the Church of Rome so Henry VIII could re-marry and in WW1, I'm pretty sure while we might have claimed we had God on our side, I'm pretty sure the Germans thought the same.
I'm interested to see how we can undercut Dubai and Singapore in terms of personal taxation given even the post-Brexit Conservatives realised Singapore-on-Thames was a non-starter.
I'll be interested to see how Badenoch and Stride react to Yususf's ideas. Our resident Conservative seems to be more interested in attacking the critiques of others rather than stating his own view - does he have an opinion or is he waiting for Kemi to tell him what to think?
I think I'd comment on the importance of looking beyond media reports or commentary from politicised people, which are nearly always about the people commentating, and the item being reported on is feedstock for the agenda.
The "rich church", "third biggest landowner in the country", and so on, stuff is about that. But the "wealth of the church" (held by the Church Commissioners" consisted until very recently overwhlemingly of the staff pension fund. 25 years ago the CC asset base was 60% for staff pensions (previously 80%), and now it is down to about 20%. That has been achieved by a) Transferring post-1998 pension liabilities to dioceses and b) Excellent investment performance - at a top1% of funds level last time I checked.
So now greater investment is being made in future church development, and I could a pivot to more support for Dioceses with funding. They can now distribute about £250-300m per annum that is not pensions.
Various media and campaign groups get very angry that the established church continues significantly to value, and aspire towards, tolerance of diverse Christian traditions within the church. That is especially among forums on both traditionalist and more inclusive ends. I think those tending towards a modern version of Christian Nationalism (or National Conservatism) are particularly miffed that the church will not do as they demand. There's a problem there with campaigners picking up narrower values than we have here from the Trumpish USA.
Some even tried to frame Justin Welby - a charismatic evangelical out of Holy Trinity Brompton - as a "woke liberal" as he did not embrace the complete set of dogmas required.
I hold £200,000 on trust for a parish church. Any suggestions for investment would be welcome.
How quickly would you need to access it ? How long would you be willing to tie it up for ?
What is your risk profile ?
I’m paying it over eight annual instalments. I want to minimise risk, but I want something better than the meagre rate of interest that my firm’s bank pays.
What rate are they paying ?
1.3%
Hmmm. I've long thought that someone like the Church Commissioners could offer an "invest via us" service; their average return is about 10% per annum over the long run.
The church of England Pensions Board afaics achieve about 8%.
Aside from normal investment routes (which I think you perhaps know more about than me), which would be whatever they are, in the church world are:
1 - Ask the DBF (Diocesan Board of Finance) who they would consider. 2 - The Church Commissioners have issued bonds in recent years (which I did not know about until this morning) with grades of AAA or AA1 and a return of % to 5%. The Nov 2025 one at 5.25% maturing in 2035 looks interesting, but I have no idea if these are even traded. 3 - There is a thing called CCLA Investments which is an investment manager used by parishes for funds, who offer various things including short term and longer term investments. https://www.ccla.co.uk/
I'm not sure if these offer any advantages eg for being able to transfer over more easily when the time comes, but they are out there.
I'm not sure how much traction all this "culture wars" nonsense outside the Reform/Restore/Conservative side of the fence.
I live opposite a Church and know the Vicar fairly well. Financially, despite what some would have you believe, she tells me it's a struggle. The Church and especially its hall is booked out by all sorts of groups from maths/english tutors to evangelical Christians. There are Sunday services in English and Tamil for the local Hindu community.
Yet she relies on volunteers to do most of the small scale repairs and mainteance both at the Church and the vicarage.
It's a focal point for the immediate locality and the only Church nearby while the Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus all have their places of worship on the High Street.
As for Yusuf - I think children and young people should be exposed to the basic tenets of a number of faiths and belief systems. I'm not entirely sure what a "patriotic curriculum based on Christianity" means. The Norman Conquest was supported by the Pope and as I recall we broke with the Church of Rome so Henry VIII could re-marry and in WW1, I'm pretty sure while we might have claimed we had God on our side, I'm pretty sure the Germans thought the same.
I'm interested to see how we can undercut Dubai and Singapore in terms of personal taxation given even the post-Brexit Conservatives realised Singapore-on-Thames was a non-starter.
I'll be interested to see how Badenoch and Stride react to Yususf's ideas. Our resident Conservative seems to be more interested in attacking the critiques of others rather than stating his own view - does he have an opinion or is he waiting for Kemi to tell him what to think?
I think I'd comment on the importance of looking beyond media reports or commentary from politicised people, which are nearly always about the people commentating, and the item being reported on is feedstock for the agenda.
The "rich church", "third biggest landowner in the country", and so on, stuff is about that. But the "wealth of the church" (held by the Church Commissioners" consisted until very recently overwhlemingly of the staff pension fund. 25 years ago the CC asset base was 60% for staff pensions (previously 80%), and now it is down to about 20%. That has been achieved by a) Transferring post-1998 pension liabilities to dioceses and b) Excellent investment performance - at a top1% of funds level last time I checked.
So now greater investment is being made in future church development, and I could a pivot to more support for Dioceses with funding. They can now distribute about £250-300m per annum that is not pensions.
Various media and campaign groups get very angry that the established church continues significantly to value, and aspire towards, tolerance of diverse Christian traditions within the church. That is especially among forums on both traditionalist and more inclusive ends. I think those tending towards a modern version of Christian Nationalism (or National Conservatism) are particularly miffed that the church will not do as they demand. There's a problem there with campaigners picking up narrower values than we have here from the Trumpish USA.
Some even tried to frame Justin Welby - a charismatic evangelical out of Holy Trinity Brompton - as a "woke liberal" as he did not embrace the complete set of dogmas required.
I hold £200,000 on trust for a parish church. Any suggestions for investment would be welcome.
How quickly would you need to access it ? How long would you be willing to tie it up for ?
What is your risk profile ?
I’m paying it over eight annual instalments. I want to minimise risk, but I want something better than the meagre rate of interest that my firm’s bank pays.
What rate are they paying ?
1.3%
Are you able to invest in money market funds?
I'm no expert on trust investing, but if there's a way to access they are generally 1) lower risk than holding money with a bank above the FSCS guarantee, 2) pay interest similar to that BoE's base rate (gross, but fees should be modest). So probably north of 3% net at the moment.
Royal London Short Term Money Market, will get you north of 4% and very low risk.
Comments
Nigel Farage’s party plans to deport up to 288,000 people a year on five flights a day
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/feb/22/reform-uk-ice-style-agency-end-leave-to-remain-zia-yusuf
"Greenhouse gases are not injurious to human health as far as I am aware."
I don't know of any substance that is not "Injurious to human health" -- in the wrong amounts.
Many of those on ILR won’t reach the salary threshold . There should be a campaign to get them to get citizenship and ensure they can vote , every vote is needed to ensure the disgusting hate filled Reform are nowhere near power.
Yusuf
Maggie Oliver
That Starmer used form of warning long used before he took COS job to warn suspected paedos not to contact specific children
A formal document issued under various Governments for decades by all police forces
A Daily Express cut and paste hatchet job but GB News decide critics eg Yusuf and a semi demented ex copper decide it's all on Starmer
Yikes
His relaunch must really be worrying them
So in dismissing any such attacks, sure, perhaps they are worried by a relaunch, but don't rely on that being so in every case, it can be a coping mechanism.
Rather than saying, "I believe this policy is preferable because it has these advantages..." arguments are made of the form, "to refuse to implement this policy is to condemn the people of the nation to an eternity of needless torment."
One of these types of arguments is also a lot more eye-catching and motivating, in addition to the advantage of not needing to address contrary views.
Your beef really seems to be with people misinterpreting the science, or drawing a tortured series of tenuous implications from it to draw conclusions that aren't warranted - and as you say that happens with physics as well as with the social sciences
The chief problem is that anything in society that is invested with authority - whether that is science, or religion, or anything else - will have people trying to appropriate that authority in order to justify their hobby horse - whether that's sexual morality, racism, or squeamishness about holding people accountable for their actions - and it's a constant struggle to discriminate between those who are being cavalier with it, and those who have drawn justified conclusions.
(As another example the recent radiolabs podcast on self-esteem was really interesting in terms of the way in which the science can be misrepresented, but that it can also say interesting things when it is done right.)
See the many works on Political Religions.
Depressing to see Labour supporters on here becoming the voice of the grumpy old reactionary boomer earlier today.
Then they wonder why younger folk are voting Green.
If I had to bet, I would bet on the Crackpot. Humans, it seems to me, find it harder to cope with attacks from micro-parasites than macro-parasites, for example, Putin. Even now, when many, if not most, in advanced nations believe in germ theories. And even, since the 1930s, though we have been able to photograph the smallest micro-parasites, viruses.
And so we are more vulnerable to Crackpot, and others like him.
Based on government policy supposedly being to phase out boilers for alternative technologies like heat pumps.
The Unqualified are barely worth mentioning. Here today, gone tomorrow failures have often adorned politics.
The Loser is a close runner up due to the damage to democracy and standards, though he is to an extent weaponising polarism that already existed. And he is such an egotist that it is primarily all about him, which has a healthy guardrail that he will be gone soon either way.
The Crackpot is undermining faith in science and collective herd immunities are failing as a result, which we could be paying a price for in many years if not decades to come.
https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/2025749760443908555
An Englishman, a Scotsman, an Irishman, a Turk, a German, an Indian, an American, an Argentinean, a Dane, am Australian, a Slovakian, an Egyptian, a Japanese, a Moroccan, a Frenchman, a New Zealander, a Spaniard, a Russian, a Guatemalan, a Columbian, a Pakistani, a Malaysian, a Croatian, a Pole, a Lithuanian, a Chinese, a Sri Lankan, a Lebanese, a Cayman Islander, a Ugandan, a Vietnamese, a Korean, a Uruguayan, a Czech, an Icelander, a Mexican, a Finn, a Honduran, a Panamanian, an Andorran, an Israeli, a Venezuelan, a Fijian, a Peruvian, an Estonian, a Brazilian, a Portugese, a Liechtensteiner, a Mongolian, a Hungarian, a Canadian, a Moldovan, a Haitian, a Norfolk Islander, a Macedonian, a Bolivian, a Cook Islander, a Tajikistani, a Samoan, an Armenian, an Aruban, an Albanian, a Greenlander, a Micronesian, a Virgin Islander, a Georgian, a Bahaman, a Belarusian, a Cuban, a Tongan, a Cambodian, a Qatari, an Azerbaijani, a Romanian, a Chilean, a Kyrgyztani, a Jamaican, a Filipino, a Ukranian, a Dutchman, a Taiwanese, an Ecuadorian, a Costa Rican, a Swede, a Bulgarian, a Serb, a Swiss, a Greek, a Belgian, a Singaporean, an Italian, and a Norwegian walk into a fine restaurant.
"I'm sorry," said the maître d',
"But you can't come in here without a Thai."
https://x.com/InsideLucysHead/status/2025525599221985330
It won't do what he wants - planning permission can still be granted.
And Ref UK are too lazy to have their homework. This amounts to imposing a massive new bureaucracy (as do the "Patriotic Curriculum" and the others bits), and massive new costs, on both the churches and the Listing Authorities. Who will pay? And will paying more help preserve such worshipping communities? Is he really going to give a listed designation to every clapperboard Gospel Hall and brick built 1920s Methodist church?
Based on the Church of England costs, which has most (70-80% iirc) of the Grade 1 listed buildings in England, being around £150-200m a year for basic maintenance and routine repairs based on a 5-year architectural inspection, before special appeals and excluding cathedrals, I wonder what impact adding another 40k buildings would have? Who will pay - will a RefUK Govt put in £300m to £500m per annum?
Such buildings are continually in change. There was a recent case reported (St Martin's, Brampton) where an intervention from the Victorian Society prevented the installation of an accessible entrance in the preferred way, so some people in the congregation cannot get in for months or 1-2 years more, and further costs will be imposed.
And that's leaving aside that the church does not consist in buildings. It could end up with a French-like situation.
Actually, It could be done by a simple use-class restriction, but Ref UK are the Two Short Planks Party.
https://x.com/bohuslavskakate/status/2025789914822930648
I’m not sure it’s meaningful to say that 50 years ago the republicans were more favourable to science than the democrats and that has switched today. It’s accurate but misleading.
50 years ago was when the Southern Strategy was just launching. So the voters haven’t changed their position - the parties have switched their voter bases.
Missed the Great Chicken Debate of 2026 but FYI I use kitchen roll. The veg is roasted separately in olive oil and seasoning. Also a great speech by @boulay on why we should love millionaires as apparently they will save local pubs with their spending. You'll be able to spot them in your local with all the Ferraris and Maseratis parked outside.
But a quick thanks to @TSE. The early notice of the odds on the Greens mean I'm now green on G&D barring a late surge by Kemi.
We had a terrific side then. Pendrey, Page, Bryant, Big Joe, Roger Hynd.
Twitter often throws up Star Soccer clips from the early seventies, brilliant.
F1: a short pre-season wibble with some perhaps interesting nuggets of information:
https://morrisf1.blogspot.com/2026/02/f1-2026-pre-season-wibble.html
As far as I can seem, inside the Trump Administation there are only Trump's addled brain, the voices in his head, and a collection of bootlicking nonentities.
Where would any debate come from?
The "rich church", "third biggest landowner in the country", and so on, stuff is about that. But the "wealth of the church" (held by the Church Commissioners" consisted until very recently overwhlemingly of the staff pension fund. 25 years ago the CC asset base was 60% for staff pensions (previously 80%), and now it is down to about 20%. That has been achieved by a) Transferring post-1998 pension liabilities to dioceses and b) Excellent investment performance - at a top1% of funds level last time I checked.
So now greater investment is being made in future church development, and I could a pivot to more support for Dioceses with funding. They can now distribute about £250-300m per annum that is not pensions.
Various media and campaign groups get very angry that the established church continues significantly to value, and aspire towards, tolerance of diverse Christian traditions within the church. That is especially among forums on both traditionalist and more inclusive ends. I think those tending towards a modern version of Christian Nationalism (or National Conservatism) are particularly miffed that the church will not do as they demand. There's a problem there with campaigners picking up narrower values than we have here from the Trumpish USA.
Some even tried to frame Justin Welby - a charismatic evangelical out of Holy Trinity Brompton - as a "woke liberal" as he did not embrace the complete set of dogmas required.
What is your risk profile ?
I suspect that Yusuf does not have a clue what a patriotic curriculum is, either. Neither do I. Trying to hang it all on one of either religion or secularism is silly - both are unbalanced narratives. I'm inclined to values of critical enquiry and tolerance, with "find out first" as a practice.
As an example, the first call for Freedom of Conscience for atheists in this country, as far as I am aware, was a nonconformist Minister (views that were discriminated against) writing in 1610.
On "God on our side", it's easy to say. A Wehrmacht buckle from WW2, with German Eagle and Swastika:
They’re dead in the water anyway.
Not forgetting a chunky little winger Gordon Taylor, who had a penchant for smashing home 30 yarders. (He didn't do too badly for himself in the game after retiring lol).
The era of Jolly Jack Wiseman and the Coombes family, one of the Coombes sons became an MP I think. You could hear Keep Right On as you walked past the old Cop Shop in Digbeth on the way to Adderley Street.
The iconic Steel ramp fly over too!
Obviously, this probably won’t come to pass. It is interesting nonetheless given the pace at which this is happening.
https://x.com/citrini7/status/2025653614430023864?s=61
Looks like a good cast. I’ve liked Gemma Jones since Duchess of Duke Street.
I suppose if they did, they'd have two candidates. One endorsed by Corbyn, the other by Sultana.
I don't know what Zia means, so it's difficult to disagree. My view is that it is just signalling. If he would explain what "patriotic" means, I'll be gad to evaluate it.
I think the single most important point is that our current style of politics needs a swivel from disengagement to dialogue.
NEW THREAD
I'm no expert on trust investing, but if there's a way to access they are generally 1) lower risk than holding money with a bank above the FSCS guarantee, 2) pay interest similar to that BoE's base rate (gross, but fees should be modest). So probably north of 3% net at the moment.
Trump's administration is perhaps the first so comprehensively to pander to the anti-science tendency on a widespread and comprehensive basis.
Miller v Rubio, for example.
The church of England Pensions Board afaics achieve about 8%.
Aside from normal investment routes (which I think you perhaps know more about than me), which would be whatever they are, in the church world are:
1 - Ask the DBF (Diocesan Board of Finance) who they would consider.
2 - The Church Commissioners have issued bonds in recent years (which I did not know about until this morning) with grades of AAA or AA1 and a return of % to 5%. The Nov 2025 one at 5.25% maturing in 2035 looks interesting, but I have no idea if these are even traded.
3 - There is a thing called CCLA Investments which is an investment manager used by parishes for funds, who offer various things including short term and longer term investments.
https://www.ccla.co.uk/
I'm not sure if these offer any advantages eg for being able to transfer over more easily when the time comes, but they are out there.
It wasn't big
It wasn't news